No guts, no glory? How risk-taking shapes dominance, prestige, and leadership endorsement.

Abstract

Risk-taking can fuel innovation and growth, but it can also have devastating consequences for individuals and organizations. Here we examine whether risk-taking affords social-hierarchical benefits to risk-takers. Specifically, we investigate how risk-taking influences perceived dominance, prestige, and the willingness to endorse risk-takers' leadership. Integrating insights from costly signaling theory and the dominance/ prestige framework of social rank, we theorized that risk-taking increases leadership endorsement to the degree that it fuels perceptions of prestige, but decreases leadership endorsement to the degree that it fuels perceptions of dominance. However, we also hypothesized that risk-induced perceptions of dominance do translate into leadership endorsement in competitive (rather than cooperative) intergroup settings. We tested these hypotheses in four studies involving different samples, methods, and operationalizations. In Study 1, participants performed an implicit association test (IAT) that revealed that people associate risk with leader positions, and safety with follower positions. Study 2 was a longitudinal field survey conducted during the September 2019 Israeli elections, which showed that voters' perceptions of politicians' risk-taking propensities prior to the elections positively predicted perceived dominance and prestige as well as voting behavior during the elections. Finally, Studies 3 and 4 demonstrated that people are willing to support risktakers as leaders in the context of competitive (as opposed to cooperative) intergroup situations, because perceived dominance positively predicts leadership endorsement in competitive (but not cooperative) intergroup settings. We discuss implications for understanding the social dynamics of organizational rank and the perpetuation of risky behavior in organizations, politics, and society at large.

The impact of leader dominance on employees’ zero-sum mindset and helping behavior.

“…In certain instances, their intimidating and confident manner can lead to compliance based on a sense of psychological threat (Cheng et al, 2013). Such individuals often emerge as leaders when intergroup competition is high (Halevy et al, 2012), when the environment is uncertain or threatening (Kakkar & Sivanathan, 2017), or when the situation demands making risky decisions (van Kleef et al, 2021). Leaders high (as opposed to low) on dominance are known to build instrumental alliances in order to protect their interests and goals (Maner & Case, 2016).…”

Cheating at the Top: Trait Dominance Explains Dishonesty More Consistently Than Social Power

“…As such, trait dominance predicts the attainment of leadership positions ( Judge et al, 2002 ). The promotion of dominant individuals is especially pronounced in competitive intergroup settings ( Van Kleef et al, 2021 ), and under uncertainty, when individuals feel a lack of personal control ( Kakkar & Sivanathan, 2017 ).…”

How norm violators rise and fall in the eyes of others: The role of sanctions

“…This argument resonates with costly signaling theory [25,26], which states that any seemingly costly behavior (involving large investments or risks of receiving negative outcomes) functions as a signal of an underlying characteristic [25,26]. An example of costly behavior is the reckless driving of young men as to show their strength and skills to peers and potential mates, risking serious injury or death-a type of behavior that is under particular circumstances "rewarded" with power [27]. Norm violations are potentially costly as they are frequently sanctioned [14] by means of formal (e.g., legal) punishment [28] and/or informal (social) punishment (e.g., anger, social exclusion [29,30]).…”