“License to Fail”: Goal definition, leader group prototypicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35 www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp

‘‘License to Fail’’: Goal definition, leader group prototypicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure q Steffen R. Giessner *, Daan van Knippenberg RSM Erasmus University, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Room T8-44, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands Received 21 December 2005 Available online 31 May 2007 Accepted by John Schaubroeck

Abstract Leaders who fail to achieve group or organizational goals risk losing follower endorsement. We propose a model in which leader characteristics (leader group prototypicality—the leader’s representativeness of group identity) and goal definition (a maximal goal that ideally would be reached vs. a minimal goal that ought to be reached) interact to affect leadership perceptions after failure. Group prototypical (vs. non-prototypical) leaders are proposed to receive more trust in leadership and, therefore, to be evaluated as more effective by their followers after failing to achieve a maximal goal, but not after failing to achieve a minimal goal. This model was supported in a series of four studies including experimental, field, and scenario paradigms. In addition, we showed that this model holds only after failure and not after success, and more for followers who identify strongly (vs. weakly) with their group.  2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Leader group prototypicality; Leader performance; Minimal and maximal goals; Follower endorsement; Trust in leadership

Introduction Failures to reach organizational, group, or team goals are often attributed to leaders (Lord, Binning, Rush, & Thomas, 1978; Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985; Phillips & Lord, 1981). When such negative events are attributed to the leader, follower endorsement of the leader is likely to decrease. Accordingly, the basis for the leader to influence and mobilize followers, and thus the basis for leadership effectiveness (Chemers, 2001; Yukl, 2001), is also likely to suffer after a failure to achieve goals. But do failing leaders always lose the

q

The research reported in this article was supported by a fellowship from the Erasmus Research Institute of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands, awarded to the first author. We thank John Schaubroeck and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. * Corresponding author. Fax: +31 0 10 4089015. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.R. Giessner). 0749-5978/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.04.002

endorsement of followers or are there conditions under which they might have a ‘‘license to fail’’ and suffer no ill consequences after failure? This question is highly relevant to our understanding of leadership effectiveness, because leaders will sooner or later inevitably find themselves in a situation where they are associated with a failure to achieve group or organizational goals, and leaders’ ability to maintain follower endorsement despite such associations with failure would seem critical to their continued effectiveness as a leader. To answer this question, we build on the social identity analysis of leadership (Hogg, 2001; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003) and on research on goal definitions (Brendl & Higgins, 1996). The social identity analysis of leadership has explicitly focused on factors that may give leaders greater credit in the eyes of their followers, which we propose may protect them against lower endorsement after failure to achieve goals important to the group. It has so far focused on leaders’ ability to mobilize

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

and motivate followers (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004) and has not considered situations in which leaders are associated with failure. To extend the social identity analysis to the realm of leader failure, we integrate insights from research on goal definition (Brendl & Higgins, 1996). Leader failure implies the non-achievement of a goal and followers’ perceptions of the specific goal on which the leader fails will influence how followers’ evaluate the degree of failure. Thus, we provide an integrated framework to explain followers’ leadership evaluations after leader failure. Performance of leaders and leadership endorsement Given the impact leaders have on groups and organizations, it is not surprising that leadership research has focused on the effects of performance information on the evaluation and endorsement of the leader (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Ensari & Murphy, 2003; Haslam, 2001; Lord et al., 1978; Meindl et al., 1985; Shamir, 1992). Research by Lord and colleagues indicates that information about team performance influences followers’ leadership perceptions (Lord et al., 1978; Phillips & Lord, 1981; Rush, Thomas, & Lord, 1977). People seem to infer the presence of ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘bad’’ leadership from performance information. Elaborating on this, Meindl and colleagues (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987; Meindl et al., 1985) developed the ‘‘romance of leadership’’ concept to explain why followers often attribute performance information directly to the leader. They argue that people have a romanticized, heroic view of leadership in which leaders are accorded more influence over events than would be justified. This leads to attributions of organizational performance to the leader. Thus, both organizational success and organizational failure are often attributed to the leader, and leaders associated with failure risk losing followers’ endorsement. However, research on leadership evaluations after performance information has focused on responses to leadership by what were essentially uninvolved observers. That is, participants in these studies were not placed in a position in which they were asked to evaluate their own (presumed) leader. Yet, leaders do not only lead groups, they are also members of the groups they lead (Hollander, 1964). Thus, leadership processes are enacted in the context of a shared group membership, where leaders, as group members, ask followers, as group members, to exert themselves on behalf of the collective. Characteristics of the leader as a group member, therefore, play a key role in leadership endorsement (Hogg, 2001; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Hence, to understand responses to leaders associated with failure to reach performance goals, it is important to take into account the shared group membership of leader and followers—a perspective we take in the current research.

15

A social identity approach to leader endorsement One influential approach to understand the effects of shared group membership on perceptions, evaluations, and behavior is the social identity approach which is grounded in Social Identity Theory (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and Self-Categorization Theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). From the social identity perspective it is argued that people define themselves not only on the basis of their individual characteristics and interpersonal relations (i.e., personal identity or individual self), but also in terms of characteristics of the groups to which they belong (i.e., social identity or collective self). While the social identity approach originally was developed as an analysis of intergroup relations, in recent years it has been applied to study a variety of issues in organizational behavior (for overviews, see Haslam, 2001; Haslam, van Knippenberg, Platow, & Ellemers, 2003; Hogg & Terry, 2000). This approach has also been applied to the study of leadership processes in groups (Hogg, 2001; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). The concept of group prototypes (i.e., fuzzy sets of characteristics that in a given context define the group; cf. Rosch, 1978) takes a central role within this perspective. The group prototype can be defined as an ideal representation of the group’s identity (i.e., the most prototypical group member is not necessarily the average group member) that describes and prescribes group membership appropriate attributes and behavior in a specific context. If group membership is salient, followers’ responses to the leader will depend on how similar the leader is to the prototype of the group or organization—leader’s group prototypicality (Hogg, 2001). This conceptualization of prototypicality differs from the one used in Leader Categorization Theory (Lord, Foti, & Phillips, 1982; Lord & Maher, 1991), in which it is understood as a context-specific category defining general schemas of effective leaders. In other words, prototypicality is understood as an effective leadership stereotype for a specific context (e.g., military, business, etc.). In contrast, group prototypicality as defined by the social identity approach is a more dynamic conceptualization which is defined on the salient group level (Hogg, 2001; Turner et al., 1987). Former research has shown that effective leader schemas are used as reference points of leadership evaluations when group membership salience is low, whereas group prototypes are used when group membership salience is high (Hains, Hogg, & Duck, 1997; Lord & Hall, 2003). Thus, the underlying processes of leader evaluations are the same (i.e., leader fit to an abstracted prototype as comparison standard), but the reference points differ. We use the term prototypical leader as defined in the social identity approach throughout this paper.

16

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

Prototypical as compared to less prototypical leaders are seen as exemplifying the shared group or organizational identity, and as representing what defines the group and distinguishes it from other groups (e.g., a US president seen as a ‘‘real American’’ and the embodiment of American values). As a consequence, prototypical leaders have more potential to influence their followers, are perceived as more effective leaders (Hains et al., 1997; Hogg, Hains, & Mason, 1998; Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001; Platow, van Knippenberg, Haslam, van Knippenberg, & Spears, 2006), and are seen as more charismatic (Platow, Haslam, Foddy, & Grace, 2003; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). Furthermore, prototypical leaders are more trusted than less prototypical leaders, because they are perceived as having the group’s interest at heart. The social identity analysis suggests that the greater trust in leadership given to a prototypical (vs. non-prototypical) leader is the central mechanism through which prototypical leaders receive stronger follower endorsement than less prototypical leaders (Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). A social identity model of leadership endorsement after leader failure The current research builds on this social identity framework. We argue that leaders who are more trusted to have the group’s best interest at heart should also receive more leeway for their behaviors (Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). That is, less desirable behaviors should be evaluated less critically for such leaders. Therefore, leader failure, as an instance of a less desirable behavior, should influence leadership evaluations of a leader who is trusted to a lesser extent than evaluations of a leader who is less trusted. This argument is also in line with Hollander’s (1964) theory of idiosyncrasy credit. He argues that leaders need an accumulation of positive impressions in order to gain leeway for deviating actions. However, whereas Hollander hypothesizes that credits can only be ‘‘earned’’ through group-oriented behaviors, a social identity analysis of leadership shows that leader prototypicality can directly affect idiosyncrasy credit1. In line with this, it has been shown that follower endorsement of prototypical (vs. less prototypical) leaders is less contingent on leader behaviors that indicate the leader’s group-orientedness, such as ingroup-favoring allocation decisions (Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001) or self-sacrificing behavior on

1

We treat the term trust in leadership and idiosyncrasy credit as interchangable. Both terms implicate a kind of trust and leeway given to the leader.

behalf of the group (van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). The evidence for the greater effectiveness of prototypical leaders is quite robust and derives from studies using different paradigms, different operationalizations of prototypicality, different measures of leadership effectiveness, and experimental as well as field settings (for overviews, see Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003; van Knippenberg et al., 2004). As a consequence, we hypothesize that a prototypical leader should receive more follower endorsement (i.e., more positive evaluations of leadership effectiveness) than a non-prototypical leader after failing to reach a goal. This is because a prototypical (vs. non-prototypical) leader receives greater trust in leadership which, in turn, should protect prototypical leaders from the negative evaluations that non-prototypical leaders are likely to receive. Thus, especially in case of failure to reach performance goals, prototypical leaders should be perceived as more effective than non-prototypical leaders. Goal definition, leader prototypicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness Leadership evaluations after leader failure are likely to not only be contingent on factors that affect trust in leadership such as leader prototypicality (i.e., a form of recognition-based processing—processing related to the perception of the leader; cf. Ensari & Murphy, 2003; Lord & Maher, 1991). Another key issue should be the nature of the goal that the leader failed to achieve (i.e., a form of inference-based processing—processing related to the outcomes of an event; cf. Ensari & Murphy, 2003; Lord & Maher, 1991). Generally, failure to achieve a goal is a negative event. However, not all goal failures are likely to be perceived equally negatively (Brendl & Higgins, 1996). If we can identify a factor that affects the extent to which failure in goal achievement is perceived as more or less negative, we may identify an important factor associated with attenuated responses to leader failure. One approach to understand how followers evaluate a leader after failure is to understand how individuals evaluate others on the basis of the goals pursued. In a comprehensive overview, Brendl and Higgins (1996) summarized principles determining the valence of events (i.e., the emotional value associated with an event). They argue that it is useful to differentiate between two types of goal definition influencing valence judgments: minimal goals and maximal goals (see also Kessler, Neumann, Mummendey, Schubert, & Waldzus, 2006; Schubert, Mummendey, Waldzus, & Kessler, 2005). Both minimal and maximal goals are specific goals (e.g., ‘‘I want to do 20 push-ups’’) which serve more abstract goals (e.g., ‘‘I want to exercise’’). Whereas the

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

abstract goals give meaning to en event, specific goals set the reference point to evaluate the valence of an event in relation to the more abstract goal. Maximal goals can be defined as ‘‘ideal’’ goals which support abstract goals. The closer an event (i.e., outcome of a task) is to a maximal goal the less negatively (or more positively) it is evaluated. Therefore, the valence of events is determined gradually (Brendl & Higgins, 1996; Kessler et al., 2006). In other words, deviations from this reference point (i.e., maximal goal) are gradually evaluated from negative or less positive to positive. For instance, a leader’s goal could be to acquire new business value of ideally 200 million dollars. This goal could imply that reaching such a high level of business value would mean that the company would become a market leader. Not reaching this goal does not necessarily represent a negative outcome. In this sense, the goal is a maximal goal, and a negative deviation from the goal would leave some leeway for the evaluation of the leader’s performance. In contrast, a minimal goal can be regarded as ‘‘the lowest goal whose end state will still produce satisfaction’’ (Brendl & Higgins, 1996, p. 104; see also Rotter, 1954/1982a, 1970/1982b). As such, it is as a reference point or standard which determines valence of a task outcome in an absolute, either or fashion (Kessler et al., 2006; Schubert et al., 2005; see also Rotter, 1954/1982a). If such a reference point is reached, it is positive or non-negative, if it is not reached, the evaluation is automatically negative. Thus, any failure to reach this reference point leads to a ‘‘categorical’’ negative evaluation (Kessler et al., 2006; Schubert et al., 2005). For example, the leader of a company may have the goal to acquire new business value of at least 200 million dollars. This amount of business value may represent the amount of money which is necessary to guarantee that the company has no financial problems for the next business year. If the leader does not manage to reach this financial goal, it does not matter whether the leader managed to get 180 or 150 million dollars, or whether the followers trust the leader or not. If the leader fails to reach this goal, the consequences are negative for the company. We argue that goal definition as a minimal goal vs. a maximal goal has implications for followers’ evaluation of a leader’s goal failure. Goal definition as a minimal goal vs. as a maximal goal influences how goal failure is judged. Whereas maximal goals allow leeway for the interpretation of goal failure (i.e., because evaluations are on a continuous scale), minimal goals do not leave such room for interpretation (i.e., because evaluations are categorical). We propose that prototypical (vs. non-prototypical) leaders receive more trust in leadership which provides them with leeway for goal deviations. However, only a maximal goal definition provides the opportunity for gradual evaluations of leaders after failure. A minimal goal does not. There-

17

fore, leader prototypicality and the greater trust in more prototypical leaders should have less influence on leadership perceptions after failure to meet a minimal goal. In contrast, a maximal goal is an ideal goal, and failure to reach a maximal goal is more likely to be evaluated gradually and should leave more leeway for interpretation. Therefore, leader characteristics such as leader prototypicality and the associated greater trust in prototypical leaders are more likely to influence leadership perceptions after failure to reach a maximal goal than after failure to reach a minimal goal. In sum, building on a social identity perspective (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003) and on principles of judging the valence of goal-related events (Brendl & Higgins, 1996; Kessler et al., 2006), we predict that leader prototypicality and goal definition interact in affecting leader evaluations after leader failure. We hypothesize that prototypical leaders receive more trust in leadership which, in turn, gives the leader more leeway in failing (i.e., in terms of more positive evaluations). However, this trust in leadership can only have its positive impact on leader evaluations under maximal goal conditions, because failures on such goals allow for a gradual evaluation. In contrast, under minimal goal conditions, a failure to reach a goal is evaluated as categorically negative. Thus, independent of the trust given to a prototypical (vs. non-prototypical) leader, leader evaluations after failure on a minimal goal should be categorically negative. Our hypotheses are summarized in an overall model in Fig. 1. Overview of the current research To develop and test this model, we conducted four studies in which leader prototypicality and goal definition were manipulated (Studies 1, 2, 4) or measured (Study 3). In all studies participants held in a follower role and had to evaluate a failing leader. The main dependent variable consisted of evaluations of leadership effectiveness. Study 1 tested in an experimental laboratory context the hypothesis that leader prototypicality and goal definition interact in the prediction of leadership effectiveness evaluations after failure. Studies 2, 3, and 4 tested the hypothesis that these effects are explained by the higher trust given to the prototypical (vs. non-prototypical) leader. Additionally, Study 2 applied a scenario experimental set-up to show that the interactive effects of leader prototypicality and Goal definition

Leader group prototypicality

Trust in leadership

Evaluations of leadership effectiveness

Fig. 1. Social identity-goal definition model of leadership effectiveness evaluations after leader failure.

18

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

goal definition are unique to task failure (vs. success) situations. Study 3 tested our model in a field study applying a critical incidents technique with a heterogeneous sample of employees. Finally, Study 4 tested the underlying assumption that the interactive effects of leader prototypicality and goal definition should matter more to employees who identify more strongly with their organization. By combining three different methodologies to test and extend our analysis, we aimed to bolster the confidence in the conclusions based on the current set of studies.

Study 1 In a first test of our hypotheses, we conducted a computer-mediated experiment. This set-up allowed us to manipulate leader prototypicality and goal definition, and to give bogus feedback about leader failure to achieve the performance goal. Thus, we could ensure that performance was identical in all conditions, and establish causality in the relationship between prototypicality, goal definition, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness. While participants were led to believe that they engaged as a group in a computer-mediated task supervised by a leader, in effect this meant that the presence of a leader was simulated via the computer set-up and participants proceeded through the experiment individually. Although this set-up may seem somewhat artificial in nature, previous leadership studies using similar set-ups have shown that procedures like these create situations that are real to participants (cf. experimental vs. mundane realism; Locke, 1986; Mook, 1983) and that yield findings that are consistently replicated in surveys in organizations (De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2002, 2004; De Cremer, van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, Mullenders, & Stinglhamber, 2005; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). Furthermore, previous research in the social identity tradition has shown that in such minimal settings group memberships can actually elicit strong effects on cognition, emotions, and behavior (see Brewer, 1979; Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002; Tajfel, 1982). Methods Participants and design Ninety-six undergraduate business administration students (33 females, 63 males) participated in this study. The age of the participants varied between 18 and 29 years (M = 20.39, SD = 2.10), and the majority was employed. The study used a two-factor betweensubjects design manipulating leader prototypicality (prototypical vs. non-prototypical) and goal definition (maximal vs. minimal). All participants were randomly assigned to one of the conditions. Participants received 10 euro (approximately 12 USD) for their participation.

Procedure Participants arrived at the laboratory and were placed in separate computer cubicles. All instructions were given via the computer itself. The study was introduced as a team game study. It was explained that the participants would have to work in virtual teams of four players connected through a network system. The game was described as being adapted from an assessment centre and it was said that the game would have different attributes like a team structure (i.e., leader and followers) and an incentive for good team performance. Next, participants had to fill out a short questionnaire consisting of 12 items which later was used for the prototypicality manipulation. This procedure was adapted from van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg (2005). The questionnaire was said to measure perception styles. It was ostensibly used to decide on the person who would be assigned the leadership position. Subsequently the incentive of the game was explained in more detail. It was said that if the team was better than the average of all participating teams, they would take part in a price draw of 100 euro (i.e., 25 euro each). Afterwards participants received feedback about the perception style test. This feedback served as the leader prototypicality manipulation (adapted from van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). Half of the participants were informed that the person who had most in common with the other team members and who was most representative for the team would be chosen to be the team leader (prototypical leader condition). The other half was informed that the member who had the least in common with the others and who was least representative for the team would be chosen as team leader (non-prototypical leader condition).2 In both conditions it was always another team member than the participant that became the team leader. Subsequently, we measured perceived leader prototypicality (see measures section).

2 Group prototypicality was manipulated as being representative of the group in terms of a perceptual test. The conceptualization of prototypicality implies that group prototypicality covaries with similarity to the group, but the concept of prototypicality captures more— it refers to an ideal-type more than to the ‘‘average’’ group member. This manipulation has been successfully applied in former social identity research on leadership (van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005) which also showed that findings from the experimental paradigm could be replicated in two surveys of leadership in organizations. Furthermore, an established measure of leader group prototypicality (i.e., the manipulation check) confirmed our intended manipulation. Study 3 provides another test of the social identity framework by measuring leader group prototypicality with an established scale and using this scale to test our model. In addition, Studies 2 and 4 manipulate leader prototypicality through direct statements of the leader’s representativeness of the team. The results across all studies were consistent with, and are most parsimoniously explained in terms of, a social identity framework.

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

In order to heighten participants’ sense of team interaction, an e-mail system was introduced which would ostensibly be used during the team game. In this part of the experiment, participants could test this system by writing one e-mail to the other participants and by reading the e-mails of the other participants. The e-mails of the other participants were all pre-programmed (i.e., expressing motivation to start with the game)—in reality, participants were working individually. After writing one e-mail and having read all other e-mails, the participants could continue the experiment. Next, it was said that the team leader meanwhile had started a negotiation task in which the leader could earn points for the group. It was explained that because the leader had the most responsibility for the team, the leader would be responsible for getting the amount of starting points. These points would be an important basis for the team game which would follow. The more points the leader would get, the easier it would be for the team to fulfill the following tasks. Included within this information was our goal definition manipulation. Half of the participants were informed that the leader ‘‘should ideally get about’’ 200 points in the negotiation task in order to have a good starting position for the team (maximal goal condition). The other participants were informed that the leader ‘‘must at least get’’ 200 points in the negotiation task in order to have a good starting position for the team (minimal goal condition). Thus, goal definition was manipulated with a simple word framing procedure. The goal itself was kept constant in both conditions. After receiving this information, all participants had to wait for about 30 seconds until they received the feedback that the leader had acquired only 145 point at the end of the negotiation game. Subsequently, participants had to answer our dependent variables and manipulation checks. Finally, the study stopped and all participants were thoroughly debriefed about the study. Furthermore, all participants took part in a price draw of four times 25 euro (as promised at the start of the study). Measures If not otherwise said, all items used a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). Participants had to answer a 3-item scale measuring perceived leader prototypicality (e.g., ‘‘This team leader represents what is characteristic about the team’’) adapted from Platow and van Knippenberg (2001) directly after the leader prototypicality manipulation. The scale was reliable, a = .95, and the average score served as a manipulation check of leader prototypicality. All other measures followed after the manipulation of the goal definition. First, participants had to fill out an adapted 6-item scale (adapted from van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005) measuring perceived leader-

19

ship effectiveness (‘‘This team leader is a good leader’’; ‘‘This team leader is very effective’’; ‘‘This team leader leads the team in a way which motivates the team members’’; ‘‘I like working together with this leader’’; ‘‘How successful was your team leader?’’; ‘‘How successful will your leader be in future tasks?’’; responses to the last two items ranged from 1 = not successful to 7 = very successful). A principal component analysis over all six items yielded only one factor explaining 66 percent of the variance. The internal consistency of the six items was very high, a = .89. We used the average score of these six items as a measure of perceived leadership effectiveness. Next, participants had to indicate whether the leader had reached the goal or not (i.e., a dichotomous choice). This item served as a check of whether the participants read the information regarding goal failure. Afterwards, participants had to answer a 5-item scale measuring perceived goal definition. Participants were asked to think about the goal which was set for the leader and indicate which of two competing statements best described the goal of the leader (i.e., on 7-point scales). The competing statements of the five items are listed in the Appendix A. The scale was sufficiently reliable, a = .70, and an average score served as a manipulation check of goal definition. Finally, participants had to answer demographic questions regarding their gender, age and employment status. Results3 Eight participants had to be excluded from the analysis, because they indicated that they thought that the leader reached the goal rather than failed to reach the goal. There was no indication that participants in one cell were more likely to fail on this control item. Hence, the following analyses included the remaining 88 participants. Leader prototypicality and goal definition Separate 2 (leader prototypicality) · 2 (goal definition) between-subjects analysis of variance on the manipulation check measures of leader prototypicality and goal definition were conducted. The analysis on the manipulation check of leader prototypicality yielded a significant effect of leader prototypicality, F(1, 84) = 201.84, p < .001, gp 2 = .71. The prototypical leader was indeed perceived as more prototypical (M = 5.07, SD = .82) than the non-prototypical leader (M = 2.28, SD = 1.01). No other significant effects emerged from this analysis (Fs < 1).

3 We report gp 2 in our studies which refers to the partial g2 values as reported in SPSS 14.

20

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

The analysis on the manipulation check of goal definition yielded a significant effect of goal definition, F(1, 84) = 31.78, p < .001, gp 2 = .28. Participants in the maximal goal condition perceived this goal as more maximal (M = 5.19, SD = 1.08), whereas participants in the minimal goal condition perceived it as more minimal (M = 3.83, SD = 1.15). No other significant effect emerged from this analysis (Fs < 1). Hence, both manipulations were effective. Leadership effectiveness A 2 (leader prototypicality) · 2 (goal definition) between-subjects analysis of variance on perceived leadership effectiveness yielded a main effect of leader prototypicality, F(1, 84) = 7.68, p = .007, gp 2 = .08, and a significant main effect of goal definition, F(1, 84) = 14.51, p < .001, gp 2 = .15. As predicted, followers perceived the prototypical leader as more effective (M = 3.63, SD = .90) as compared to the non-prototypical leader (M = 3.20, SD = .66). Furthermore, followers perceived the leader as more effective under maximal goal framing (M = 3.70, SD = .80) than under minimal goal framing (M = 3.12, SD = .72). These main effects were, however, qualified by a significant interaction, F(1, 84) = 5.18, p = .03, gp 2 = .06. We predicted that a prototypical leader should be perceived as more effective than a non-prototypical leader only in a maximal goal condition and not in the minimal goal condition. To test this, a simple main effect analysis was conducted within the goal definition conditions. The analysis revealed no difference in leadership perceptions within the minimal goal condition, F(1, 84) = .12, p = .73, gp 2 < .01 (prototypical leader: M = 3.16, SD = .73; non-prototypical leader: M 3.08, SD = .73). However, followers perceived the prototypical leader as more effective (M = 4.09, SD = .82) than the non-prototypical leader (M = 3.32, SD = .57) within the maximal goal condition, F(1, 84) = 12.73, p = .001, gp 2 = .13. As hypothesized, prototypicality protected the leader against lower ratings of leadership effectiveness within the maximal goal condition. In addition, simple effect analyses within the prototypicality condition revealed that the prototypical leader did engender higher perceptions of leadership effectiveness within the maximal goal condition compared to the minimal goal condition, F(1, 84) = 18.52, p < .001, gp 2 = .18. In contrast, there was no significant influence of goal definition within the non-prototypical leader condition on leadership effectiveness F(1, 84) = 1.12, p = .28, gp 2 = .01. Discussion The results of Study 1 support our prediction that leader prototypicality and goal definition affect leadership endorsement after failure to meet performance

goals. Prototypical leaders are more favorably perceived after failure to meet performance goals than non-prototypical leaders, but only when performance goals are defined as maximal goals and not when they are defined as minimal goals. Results thus support a social identity analysis of leadership perceptions after failure by showing that leader representativeness of the shared social identity (i.e., prototypicality) leads followers to be relatively ‘‘forgiving’’ of failure to meet performance goals under conditions implying some room for interpretation and differential evaluation of the outcome of leaders’ attempts to achieve the goal (i.e., under maximal goal conditions). Study 1 has its limitations, however. Therefore, the following studies aim to address these limitations and to provide support for our theoretical model with different samples and by using different research paradigms.

Study 2 The aim of Study 2 was threefold. First, we aimed to show that goal failure plays a causal role in engendering the leader prototypicality by goal definition interaction on perceptions of leadership effectiveness. To do so, we included a third factor in our design, and also manipulated the performance outcome (success vs. failure). Our analysis suggests that leader prototypicality and goal definition would have less of an impact after successful goal achievement for two reasons. First, there is a general psychological tendency for individuals to focus more on negative events than on positive events (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001). Thus, the information processing of negative events generally seems to be deeper and more effortful than that of positive events. Second, according to Brendl and Higgins (1996), both the achievement of a maximal and of a minimal goal should yield positive evaluations. Whereas valence is judged either gradually or categorically for the failure to fully reach the goal, actual goal achievement is perceived as a positive state for both types of goals (see also Kessler et al., 2006). Thus, both goal types may elicit evaluations varying from negative to positive. The difference is the underlying type of evaluation scale: continuous vs. categorical. Therefore, the success of a leader should generally lead to a positive evaluation, regardless of whether the leader is more or less prototypical and independent of goal definition. This is because both non-prototypical and prototypical leaders can earn followers’ trust if they show successful performance. This argument is also in line with Hollander’s (1964) concept of idiosyncrasy credit. He argued that a leader first needs to earn credits in order to deviate from group norms. One way to earn such credits is success. In sum, we predict that the interactive effects of goal definition and leader prototypicality on

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

perceptions of leadership effectiveness should only hold after failure to reach performance goals, but not after successful goal achievement. Thus our model should hold only after failure but not after success. Furthermore, we have not yet tested our full model. We hypothesized that prototypical (vs. non-prototypical) leaders receive more trust in leadership from followers, because they are believed to have the group’s interest at heart (Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). This trust in leadership gives the leader leeway in the maximal goal condition, because gradual evaluations are possible. However, trust in leadership should not predict leadership evaluations under a minimal goal definition, because this goal definition does not allow gradual evaluations. In this sense, we predict a moderated mediation (see Fig. 1) and we aim to test this in the following studies. Finally, Study 2 was designed to replicate the findings of Study 1 using an experimental paradigm with more mundane realism. In Study 2, vignettes were used to manipulate prototypicality (prototypical vs. non-prototypical leader), goal definition (maximal vs. minimal goal), and performance of the leader on behalf of the group (success vs. failure). Using such a methodology has advantages and disadvantages. The strongest advantage is that it is possible to describe a more realistic and naturalistic situation. We chose a situation which business and economics students can easily imagine and which has been successfully applied in an earlier leadership study in which it yielded results that were replicated in two surveys of leadership in organizations (van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). Furthermore, we know from related leadership research (De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2002, 2004; De Cremer et al., 2005) that scenario experiments on leadership consistently yielded the same results as laboratory experiments and field surveys. Methods Participants and design One-hundred and fifty-one undergraduate business administration students (103 females, 48 males) took part in the study. The sample was aged between 17 and 25 years (M = 18.76, SD = 1.22), and the majority was employed. A 2 (leader prototypicality) · 2 (goal definition) · 2 (leader performance) between-subjects design was used. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the eight conditions. Procedure and measures The study was conducted as part of a series of studies. Each participant received 10 euro for participation in all studies. The other studies were not related to the current

21

study and the instructions for participants clearly stated this. Participants came to the laboratory and were placed in separate cubicles. All manipulations and questions were provided through a computer. The study was announced as a study about leadership. After a short introduction, participants read a description of a team leader of an internationally-oriented consulting agency with high reputation which actually was the manipulation of leader prototypicality (adapted from van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). The non-prototypical leader was described as an ‘‘outsider’’ who had interests and attitudes that deviated from the general group norm, and who was not representative of the team. The prototypical leader was described as representative of the group’s norms, as having attitudes and interests which were in line with the group norm and as being highly representative of the team. Following the prototypicality manipulation, three items adapted from Platow and van Knippenberg (2001) measuring leader prototypicality were presented (e.g., ‘‘This team leader represents what is characteristic about the team’’). If not mentioned differently, all answers were rated on 7-point scales ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). The average of the scale (a = .96) served as a manipulation check of prototypicality. Next, participants had to answer a 3-item scale measuring trust in leadership (‘‘I absolutely trust my team leader.’’; ‘‘I believe that I would give this team leader a lot of leeway.’’; ‘‘I think that my team leader will do the right things.’’) that had good reliability (a = .82). Afterwards, the participants were confronted with the second part of the scenario which included the manipulation of goal definition and the manipulation of leader performance. It was described that the team leader had the responsibility to achieve certain goals in securing new business value. In the maximal goal condition, it was stated that the team leader ‘‘should ideally’’ acquire new business value of 200 million euro this year. In the minimal goal condition, the term ‘‘should ideally’’ was replaced by ‘‘must at least’’. Subsequently, participants were informed that the leader acquired new business volume of either about 210 million euro (i.e., success) or 145 million euro (i.e., failure). After the participants had read the second part of the scenario, two questions were included which had two purposes. First, they served as a manipulation check of the performance manipulation. Second, the first item reinforced the manipulation of goal definition. Participants had first to answer how much money (i.e., in million euro) the team leader either should ideally or must at least acquire. The correct answer was ‘‘200’’. The second question assessed how much the leader had actually acquired. The correct answer for this question depended on the performance condition (i.e., success: 210 vs. failure: 145).

22

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

Following this, perceived leadership effectiveness was measured with the same 6-item scale used in Study 1. A principal component analysis over the six items yielded only one factor explaining 80 percent of the variance. The internal consistency of the 6-item scale was very high (a = .95). The mean of this scale was used for the analyses. Next, we asked some demographic questions: gender, age, and employment status. Finally, participants were debriefed and thanked. Results Thirteen participants had to be excluded from the sample, because they failed to answer the manipulation check of our performance manipulation correctly. Hence, 138 participants were included in the following analyses. Leader prototypicality and trust in leadership As intended, the prototypical leader was perceived as more prototypical of the team (M = 5.83, SD = .69) than the non-prototypical leader (M = 2.06, SD = .79), t(136) = 29.95, p < .001, gp 2 = .87. Hence, our prototypicality manipulation was successful. In addition, the prototypical leader received more trust (M = 5.28, SD = 1.05) than the non-prototypical leader (M = 3.84, SD = .74), t(136) = 9.34, p < .001, gp 2 = .39. No other effects were significant. Leadership effectiveness A 2 (leader prototypicality) · 2 (goal definition) · 2 (leader performance) between-subjects analysis of variance on perceptions of leadership effectiveness yielded a main effect of leader prototypicality, F(1, 130) = 42.60, p < .001, = .25, a main effect of leader performance, F(1, 130) = 289.04, p < .001, = .69, and a non-significant main effect of goal definition, F(1, 130) = 3.24, p = .07, gp 2 = .02. The prototypical leader received higher leadership effectiveness ratings (M = 4.65, SD = 1.41) than the non-prototypical leader (M = 3.97, SD = 1.33) and a successful leader received higher ratings of leadership effectiveness (M = 5.43, SD = .76) than a failing leader (M = 3.25, SD = 1.01). Furthermore, the two-way interaction of leader prototypicality and goal definition was significant, F(1, 130) = 4.04, p < .05, gp 2 = .03. These main effects and the two-way interaction were, however, qualified by the expected three-way interaction, F(1, 130) = 7.95, p = .006, gp 2 = .06. We predicted a leader prototypicality by goal definition interaction on perceptions of leadership effectiveness within the failure condition but not within the success condition. Simple interaction analyses were conducted within the conditions of leader performance. As can be seen in Table 1, there was no simple interaction effect within the success condition, F(1, 130) = .32, p = .57, gp 2 < .01. However, there was a significant sim-

Table 1 Means and standard deviations of leadership effectiveness as a function of performance, leader prototypicality, and goal definition (Study 2) Performance

Success

Failure

Leader prototypicality

Prototypical M SD Non-prototypical M SD Prototypical M SD Non-prototypical M SD

Goal definition Maximal

Minimal

5.87 .67

5.82 .52

5.15 .59

4.89 .82

4.12 1.12

3.18 .79

2.61 .49

2.93 .82

Note. Leadership effectiveness was measured on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (low leadership effectiveness) to 7 (high leadership effectiveness).

ple main effect of leader prototypicality within the success condition, F(1, 130) = 19.77, p < .001, gp 2 = .13. The prototypical leader received higher ratings of effectiveness (M = 5.85, SD = .59) than the non-prototypical leader (M = 5.04, SD = .70). Within the failure condition, we found a simple main effect of prototypicality, F(1, 130) = 22.91, p < .001, gp 2 = .15. The prototypical leader was perceived as more effective than the non-prototypical leader (M = 3.64, SD = 1.07 vs. M = 2.77, SD = .69). Furthermore, we found the expected simple interaction effect, F(1, 130) = 11.82, p = .001, gp 2 = .08 (Table 1). The pattern of this simple interaction supports our model and replicates the results of Study 1. The prototypical leader was perceived as more effective than the non-prototypical leader, but only within the maximal goal condition, F(1, 130) = 32.85, p < .001, gp 2 = .20. When the goal was defined as minimal, leader prototypicality did not influence perceptions of leadership effectiveness, F(1, 130) = .94, p = .34, gp 2 < .01. In addition, there was no difference in perceptions between the maximal and minimal goal conditions for the non-prototypical leader, F(1, 130) = 1.33, p = .25, gp 2 = .01. However, for the prototypical leader, perceptions differed significantly between the goal conditions, F(1, 130) = 15.01, p < .001, gp 2 = .10. Analyses of conditional indirect effects Different methodologies have recently been suggested to test moderated mediation (e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986; Edwards & Lambert, in press; Morgan-Lopez & MacKinnon, 2006; Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2005). There are conflicting definitions of what exactly is understood under moderated mediation and recent advancements suggest to test for precise models of moderated mediation rather than general models (Edwards & Lambert,

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

23

Table 2 Test of the conditional indirect effects in Study 2 (within the failure condition) b

SE b

t

Mediator Variable Model (Step 1) Leader prototypicality

.69

.10

7.03

<.001

Dependent Variable Model (Step 2) Leader prototypicality Trust in leadership Goal definition Goal definition · trust in leadership

.03 .40 .17 .29

.14 .13 .11 .10

.21 3.09 1.51 2.84

.83 .003 .13 .006

Level of goal definition

Indirect effect

SE

z

Conditional indirect effects (Step 3) Minimal goal level Maximal goal level

.08 .48

.11 .14

.76 3.41

.45 < .001

Conditional indirect effects with bootstrap method (Step 4) Minimal goal level .08 Maximal goal level .48

.11 .13

.71 3.62

.48 <.001

in press; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, in press). We applied a procedure recently put forward by Preacher et al. (in press). This procedure allows testing specific predictions of moderated mediation (or conditional indirect effects as Preacher and colleagues term it). The procedure to test our model with moderated mediation involves four steps. In the first step, the Mediator Variable Model, a simple regression analysis is conducted predicting the mediator variable (i.e., trust in leadership) from the independent variable (i.e., manipulated leader prototypicality). The regression should be significant. In the second step, the Dependent Variable Model, the dependent variables is regressed on the mediator (i.e., trust in leadership), the moderator (i.e., goal definition), the independent variable (i.e., leader prototypicality), and the interaction between the moderator and the mediator. The third step tests specific conditional effects of interest. More precisely, this statistic provides the conditional indirect effect of the independent variable on the dependent variables through the mediator at the two levels of the moderator variable (minimal and maximal goal). Because this test assumes a normal distribution (Shrout & Bolger, 2002), we verify the specific conditional indirect effects with a bootstrapping procedure.4 4

Bootstrapping is a method for assigning measures of accuracy to statistical estimates (Efron & Tibishirani, 1993). It is a non-parametric test which estimates the sampling distribution of the indirect effects. It is an alternative way to normal-theory tests of mediation (Lockwood & MacKinnon, 1998; Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Shrout & Bolger, 2002) and has been used in former research to estimate mediation (e.g., Brown, Cober, Kane, Levy, & Shalhoop, 2006). The bootstrapping procedure randomly samples observations with replacement from the data-set to create a pseudo sample from the original data (i.e., the population pool). The non-parametric procedure has been recommended to test indirect effects, because no assumptions regarding the underlying sampling distributions are required (Shrout & Bolger, 2002).

p

p

We tested our model within the failure condition applying this procedure. To test our specific moderated mediation model, we applied the SPSS modmed macro provided by Preacher et al. (2003, September) on their web-site. The Mediator Variable Model indicated that leader prototypicality significantly predicted trust in leadership (see Table 2 for all statistics). The significant interaction between trust in leadership and goal definition in the second step implies that the indirect effect of leader prototypicality on leadership effectiveness through trust in leadership is moderated by goal definition. In addition, the sign of the interaction indicates that the indirect effect is larger for the maximal than the minimal goal condition. Both the subsequent tests of the conditional indirect effects with normality assumptions (Step 3) and with a bootstrapping procedure (Step 4) shows that the indirect effect is only significant within the maximal, but not within the minimal goal condition. In sum, the moderated mediation analysis provides support for our hypothesized model. Discussion The results of Study 2 replicated and extended the findings of Study 1. Replicating one of the core finding from the social identity analysis of leadership (Hogg, 2001; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003), prototypical leaders were seen as more effective than non-prototypical leaders. Note that prototypical (vs. non-prototypical) leaders also obtained greater endorsement after leaders’ successful achievement of performance goals. This finding is in line with former research based on the social identity approach showing that prototypical leaders generally receive more positive evaluations than non-prototypical leaders (e.g, Hains et al., 1997). The results also indicate that both prototypical and non-prototypical leaders receive stron-

24

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

ger leadership endorsement after leader success than leader failure. Thus, success has positive consequences for the endorsement of prototypical as well as non-prototypical leaders. Consequently, non-prototypical leaders seem to be able to increase follower endorsement via successful performance. The important finding is, however, that leader prototypicality and goal definition did not interact in the prediction of leadership evaluations after leader success. Thus, as hypothesized, our model only applies to leadership failure and not to leadership success. Study 2 also replicated the basic finding that leaders are perceived more positively when they are associated with success rather than failure (Lord et al., 1978; Meindl et al., 1985). Replicating Study 1’s findings, the greater endorsement of prototypical as compared to non-prototypical leaders after failure only obtained under maximal goal conditions and not under minimal goal conditions. Extending Study 1, we also showed that the greater endorsement of prototypical leaders after failure to achieve a maximal goal was mediated by followers’ trust in leadership as hypothesized in our model. Finally, Study 2 also showed that the interactive effect of leader prototypicality and goal definition on leadership perceptions is tied to leader failure. An important caveat for Study 2 of course is that it concerned a hypothetical situation. Its findings should therefore be seen in conjunction with the findings of Study 1 and earlier findings showing the validity of scenario methodology in leadership research (cf. van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). Ultimately, however, an empirical question is in how far these results transfer to field contexts. In addition, we predicted that trust in leadership is the central mediating process through which the prototypical leader earns more positive evaluations after failing on a maximal goal. This prediction derives directly from the social identity perspective on leadership (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). However, this does not mean that we have excluded the possibility that other processes might influence these effects.

Murphy (2003) found in their study that participants attributed more responsibility to leaders who fit a stereotypical leader schema compared to leaders who fit this schema to a lesser extent. However, this effect was only present after successful performance or in a collectivist culture. This effect disappeared for participants of an individualistic culture who read a scenario of performance failure related to the leader. We therefore expect that attribution of responsibility should not necessarily mediate the effects on leadership effectiveness after leader failure. Thus, our analysis does not assume that prototypical leaders are held less responsible for a failure to reach goals. Rather, it hinges on the prediction that (under maximal goal condition) their failure to reach a goal will be viewed in a more favorable light. However, to explicitly exclude the role of attribution of responsibility as an explanatory mechanism, we included a measure of attribution in Study 3 (and 4). Finally, we extended our measure of trust in leadership. Based on our social identity framework, we argued that followers perceive the prototypical leader as having the group’s interest at heart. In other words, the leader should be perceived as being committed to the group. We measured trust in leadership as the variable reflecting this perception (cf. Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). However, our trust measure was quite general. Therefore, we included additional items directly measuring perceived leader commitment to the group. This extended measure should provide further validation of our theoretical argument. Methods

Study 3

Participants and design Sixty people took part in this study (27 female, 29 male, 4 missing values). The sample was quite heterogeneous in terms of job (e.g., teacher, social worker, senior analyst, physician), branch (e.g., school, hospital, bank, government), country of residence (38 from the U.S., others are from Sweden, U.K., Australia, Germany, Greece, India, China, Netherlands, Canada, Lebanon), and years of employment (ranging from 0.5 to 18 years). The sample was aged between 18 and 57 years (M = 30.56, SD = 12.54).

The goal of Study 3 was, therefore, threefold. First, we aimed to replicate our main findings in the field. We conducted a web-based field study employing a critical incident technique. Participants were asked to think of their present or past leader and of a task in which this leader failed. All independent and dependent variables were assessed via a questionnaire. Second, we explored possible additional mediating processes. One explanation of the difference in leadership evaluations might be different degrees of attribution of responsibility for the failure. For instance, Ensari and

Procedure and measures The study was conducted as an online study announced as a leadership survey on different research web-sites (i.e., web-sites providing links to various online surveys and experiments). We performed the survey by following recent recommendations for the conduct of internet research (Birnbaum, 2004; Kraut et al., 2004). The web-site was programmed to meet all common browser recommendations in order to avoid common technical selection biases. Further, we used cookies for each participant which made it almost

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

25

Table 3 Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s a (in correlation matrix diagonal) and correlations of the independent and Main Dependent Variables in Study 3

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) * ** ***

Leader prototypicality Goal definition Trust in leadership Leadership effectiveness Responsibility attribution

M

SD

4.07 3.68 4.34 3.75 .47

1.73 1.35 1.72 1.84 2.21

(1)

(2)

(.90) .22 .75*** .57*** .19

(.72) .19 .40** .24

(3)

(.95) .68*** .24

(4)

(.95) .32*

(5)

—

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

impossible for inexperienced users to participate in the survey more than once. We advertised the study on different internet portals for psychological studies (including subject pools of employees) and via the newsletter of the International Leadership Association (i.e., an organization of practitioners and academics). Participants received no incentive for their participation. Therefore, we made the questionnaire as short as possible, and reduced the numbers of items of some of the scales used in Studies 1 and 2. We assured respondents at the beginning that the research would be conducted anonymously. Finally, we debriefed participants shortly after the study and through the web-sites on which the study was advertised. At the beginning of the study, participants were asked to think of a leader they have or had. We made very clear that the leader should be or should have been their leader. Next, participants had to answer a 3-item scale measuring perceived leader prototypicality (e.g., ‘‘This leader represents what is characteristic about my team’’; adapted from Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001). The scale was sufficiently reliable (see Table 3 for descriptive information). Subsequently, participants had to indicate their degree of trust in leadership (‘‘I trust this leader absolutely’’; ‘‘I think this leader does/did the right things’’; ‘‘I think that this leader is trustworthy’’). Additionally, we included three items specifically measuring the perceived leader commitment to the team (‘‘This leader is very committed toward his/her team’’; ‘‘This leader wants the best for his/her team’’; ‘‘This leader aims to gain benefits for the whole team’’; adapted from van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). A principal component analysis with varimax rotation over all nine items yielded a two-factor solution explaining 81 percent of the overall variance. The first factor included all general trust items and the specific trust items related to commitment to the team (all loadings > .71). The second factor included the three leader prototypicality items (all loadings > .79). Therefore, we computed the means of the two scales. After the participants had answered these scales, they were asked to think of a situation in which their

leader had failed to achieve a goal. They could use a text box to describe this situation. Afterwards, participants had to think about the specific goal of the situation and to answer a 3-item scale measuring goal definition (i.e., adapted versions of items 1, 2, and 4 from Appendix A). The scale was sufficiently reliable. In addition, participants were also asked in how far the task was difficult, complex, familiar, needed a lot of enactment time, and needed a lot of learning time (adapted from Vallacher & Wegner, 1989). These items measured the degree of action identification of the task.5 Subsequently, a 4-item scale measured perceived leader effectiveness as used in Studies 1 and 2. Next, we asked participants how much the leader was responsible for the outcome of the task and how much circumstances outside the leader’s control were responsible for the outcome of the task (both 1-item measures). We used a difference score of these two items as a measure of responsibility attribution. Finally, the participants were asked to indicate their demographics (i.e., gender, age, branch of employment, years of employment, residence country).

5 We measured the degree of action identification to assure that the level of goal definition does not resemble the degree of action identification. Action identification refers to different cognitive levels of abstraction varying from low (detailed, specific) to high (abstract, general meaning) (cf. Vallacher & Wegner, 1989). We are thankful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this possibility. A regression of these different goal aspects on the goal definition measure indicated that none of these variables was significantly predictive of goal definition (b values ranging from .09 to .09). Thus, the degree of goal definition did not correspond to these other possible aspects of goal representation. Furthermore, a factor analysis (with orthogonal rotation) over the items of goal definition and the additional goal items yielded a 3-factor solution explaining 71 percent of the overall variance. The first factor consisted of all items representing the level of action identification (factor loadings all above .69) except the familiarity item, which loaded on the third factor (factor loading: .88). The goal definition items loaded all on the second factor (factor loadings all above .69). Thus, this analysis also indicated that the minimal-maximal goal definition can be differentiated from the degree of action identification.

26

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

Results

7

Trust in leadership We conducted a hierarchical regression analysis. In the first step, we regressed trust in leadership on leader prototypicality and goal definition. In the second step, we added the leader prototypicality by goal definition interaction to the equation. Whereas the first step of the regression explained a significant portion of the variance in trust, F(2, 57) = 39.00, p < .001, R2change = .58, the second step did not significantly explain additional variance, F(1, 56) = 0.26, p = .62, R2change < .01. The variance in the first step was significantly explained by leadership prototypicality, b = .75, SE b = .09, t(57) = 8.56, p < .001, and not by goal definition, b = .03, SE b = .11, t(57) = 0.25, p = .80. Thus, as predicted, the more prototypical the leader was perceived to be, the higher trust in leadership was.

6

Responsibility attribution A hierarchical regression analysis predicting responsibility attribution by goal definition and leader prototypicality in the first step and the interaction in the second step yielded no significant relationships. Thus, responsibility attribution was not influenced by perceptions of leader prototypicality and perceptions of goal definition when the leader failed. Leadership effectiveness We predicted an interactive effect of leader prototypicality and goal definition on leadership effectiveness. Therefore, we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis in which we regressed leadership effectiveness on leader prototypicality and goal definition and, in a second step, added the interaction (see Table 4). The first step explained a significant amount of variance. More importantly, the second step explained an additional significant proportion of the variance in leadership effectiveness. Following Aiken and West (1991), we determined the regression slopes for more minimal and more maximal goals separately (see Fig. 2). As predicted, leader prototypicality yielded a stronger positive relationship to leadership effectiveness evaluations

5

More minimal goal definition More maximal goal definition

4

3

2

1 Low leader group prototypicality

High leader group prototypicality

Fig. 2. Simple slopes analysis of Study 3. Leadership effectiveness is the dependent variable.

under a more maximal goal definition, b = .77, SE b = .15, t(56) = 5.09, p < .001, than under a more minimal goal definition, b = .33, SE b = .14, t(57) = 2.34, p = .02. Analyses of conditional indirect effects As in the previous study, we tested moderated mediation with a test of conditional indirect effects as suggested by Preacher et al. (in press). Again, we tested our specific model involving a conditional indirect effect (see Fig. 1) with the four step procedure. Thus, in a first step, we predicted trust in leadership from leader prototypicality (Mediator Variable Model). In a second step, we predicted leadership effectiveness from leader prototypicality, trust in leadership, goal definition, and the goal definition by trust in leadership interaction. In the third step, we tested the conditional indirect effect of the independent variable on the dependent variables through the mediator at the mean and at one standard deviation above and below the mean of the moderator. Because this test assumes a normal distribution (Shrout & Bolger, 2002), we verified the specific conditional indirect effects with a bootstrapping procedure. The Mediator Variable Model indicated that leader prototypicality significantly predicted trust in leadership (see Table 5 for all statistics). The significant

Table 4 Summary of regression analysis for leader prototypicality and goal definition predicting leadership effectiveness Variable

b

SE b

b

t

p

Step 1 Leader prototypicality Goal definition

.54 .39

.11 .14

.50 .29

4.80 2.74

<.001 .008

Step 2 Leader prototypicality Goal definition Leader prototypicality · goal definition

.55 .37 .16

.11 .14 .07

.52 .27 .22

5.11 2.68 2.22

<.001 .01 .03

Note. The explained variance of Step 1 was R2 = .40. Step 2 explained an additional variance of R2change = .05.

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

27

Table 5 Test of the conditional indirect effects in Study 3 b

SE b

t

p

Mediator Variable Model (Step 1) Leader prototypicality

.75

.85

8.90

<.001

Dependent Variable Model (Step 2) Leader prototypicality Trust in leadership Goal definition Goal definition · trust in leadership

.05 .64 .38 .12

.15 .14 .12 .07

.36 4.36 3.05 1.98

.72 <.001 .004 .05

Level of goal definition

Indirect effect

SE

z

p

Conditional indirect effects (Step 3) 1 SD Mean +1 SD

.35 .48 .62

.13 .12 .16

2.69 3.89 3.98

.007 <.001 <.001

Conditional indirect effects with bootstrap method (Step 4) 1 SD .34 Mean .48 +1 SD .62

.14 .13 .14

2.41 3.80 4.40

.02 <.001 <.001

interaction between trust in leadership and goal definition in the second step implies that the indirect effect of leader prototypicality on leadership effectiveness through trust in leadership is moderated by goal definition. In addition, the sign of the interaction indicates that the indirect effect is larger for the maximal than the minimal goal condition. Subsequent tests of the conditional indirect effects with normality assumptions (Step 3) as well as with a bootstrapping procedure (Step 4) show that the indirect effect is stronger under more maximal goal perceptions (+1 SD) than under minimal goal perceptions ( 1 SD). In sum, the moderated mediation analysis provides support for our hypothesized model. Discussion Participants in this study had to think of their present (or past) leader and of a task in which the leader failed. Thus, all evaluations of the leader and the goal were based on real situations in organizations. Study 3 replicated the results of Studies 1 and 2 in a field context. Therefore, these results support our social identity framework in predicting leadership evaluations after leader failure. The results also indicate that responsibility attributions towards the leader do not explain the effects of the independent variables on perceptions of leadership effectiveness. Finally, we showed that our trust in leadership measure also reflects perceived commitment towards the team. This finding is in line with our social identity framework, which assumes that greater trust in more prototypical leaders in part reflects trust in the leader’s group-orientedness (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005).

Study 4 In Study 4, we aim to provide further support for our social identity framework. Based on our theoretical framework, we would also predict that the hypothesized processes play a stronger role the stronger followers identify with their team. Therefore, the main goal of this study was to contrast a condition in which followers identify strongly with their team to a condition in which followers identify weakly with their team. We predict that our hypothesized model should yield stronger effects in the condition in which participants identify strongly with their team, because under such conditions perceptions of leader prototypicality should be more influential for leadership evaluations (Hogg, 2001; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). To test this prediction, we adapted the paradigm used in Study 2 and manipulated participants’ degree of team identification. We only focused on leader failure, as we have previously shown that our analysis applies to leader failure and not to leader success. In addition, we again measured perceived leader responsibility of the task failure. Methods Participants and design Ninety-five undergraduate business administration students (29 females, 66 males) took part in the study. The sample was aged between 18 and 28 years (M = 20.93, SD = 2.23). A 2 (identification) · 2 (leader prototypicality) · 2 (goal definition) between-subjects design was used. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the eight conditions.

28

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

Procedure and measures The study was conducted as part of a series of studies. Each participant received 10 euro for participation in all studies. The other studies were not related to the current study and instructions provided participants with a clear statement of this. Participants were placed in separate cubicles. All manipulations and questions were provided through a computer. The study was announced as a study about leadership. All participants were asked to imagine that they work in an international consultancy company with a very good reputation, and that they work in a team with other employees. In the identification manipulation, participants had to imagine different degrees of psychological linkage to their team (adapted from van Knippenberg, Martin, & Tyler, 2006). Identification is to an important extent based on perceived similarity and oneness between self and group (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner et al., 1987). In the high identification condition, we told participants that the other team members were former students coming from the same university as the participant, were very similar to them, and were having similar attitudes. Furthermore, participants had to imagine a very good match between themselves and the consultancy company in general (i.e., in terms of feeling good to work there). In the low identification condition, the other team members were described as people with whom they had no connection, were different from them, and were having different attitudes. Participants had to envision a very low match between themselves and the consultancy company in general. Hereafter, we measured the perceived degree of team identification with three items (e.g., ‘‘I identify with my team’’; a = 98). If not mentioned differently, all answers were rated on 7-point scales ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). Subsequently, the manipulation of leader prototypicality followed (adapted from van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). The description of a prototypical and non-prototypical leader was exactly the same as in Study 2. Following the prototypicality manipulation, we included two items to measure perceived leader prototypicality (adapted from Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001). The average of the items (a = .97) served as our manipulation check. Next, participants had to answer a 3-item scale measuring trust in leadership (‘‘I completely trust my leader’’; ‘‘My leader considers the group’s interest in the first place’’; ‘‘My leader only wants the best for the team’’; a = .83). Afterwards, the third part of the scenario included the manipulation of goal definition. This manipulation was exactly the same as in Study 2. All participants received the information that the leader failed in the task (i.e., he acquired new business volume of 145 million euro). Hereafter, two questions were included which

had two purposes (see also Study 2). First, they served to check whether participants picked upon the performance information. Second, the first item reinforced the manipulation of goal definition. Participants had to first answer how much money (i.e., in million euro) the team leader either should ideally or must at least acquire. The correct answer was ‘‘200’’. The second question asked about how much the leader had actually acquired. The correct answer for this question was ‘‘145’’. Next, perceived leadership effectiveness was measured with the same 6-item scale as used in the Studies 1 and 2. The answer on the item asking about the leader’s future success was not recorded, because of a program error of our software. A principal component analysis over the remaining five items yielded only one factor explaining 79 percent of the variance. The internal consistency of the 5-item scale was very high (a = .93). The mean of this scale was used for the analyses. Afterwards, we included two questions asking directly how much (a) the leader and (b) external factors outside the leader’s control were responsible for the performance result. A difference score served as a measure of perceived leader responsibility for the failure. The score ranged from 6 (=leader is fully responsible) to 6 (factors outside the leader’s control are responsible). After that, we included some additional questions about the level of action identification (see also Study 3). More precisely, participants had to rate single items on (1) how difficult they perceived the goal, (2) how complex they perceived the goal, and (3) how familiar they were with the goal.6 Finally, we asked demographic questions: gender, age, and employment status. Results Manipulation checks We conducted separate 2 (identification) · 2 (leader prototypicality) · 2 (goal definition) between-subjects ANOVAs on the team identification and leader prototypicality measures. The identification manipulation had a main effect on team identification, F(1, 87) = 548.10, p < .001, gp 2 = .86. Participants in the high identification condition indicated stronger team identification (M = 5.96, SD = .95) than participants in the low identification condition (M = 1.71, SD = .79). The analysis yielded no other effects on team identification. The leader prototypicality manipulation had a significant effect on the leader prototypicality measure, 6 Separate 2 (identification) · 2 (leader prototypicality) · 2 (goal definition) between-subjects ANOVAs on perceived goal difficulty, complexity, and familiarity yielded neither significant main effects nor significant interaction effects (all Fs < 1.81). Hence, the minimal and maximal goals were perceived to a similar degree as difficult, complex, and familiar.

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

F(1, 87) = 330.13, p < .001, gp 2 = .79. Participants in the high leader prototypicality condition perceived the leader as more prototypical (M = 6.24, SD = 1.04) than participants in the low leader prototypicality condition (M = 2.03, SD = 1.21). No other effects were found on the leader prototypicality measure. Finally, all participants answered the manipulation check for our goal definition manipulation and the failure feedback correctly. Thus, participants read and understood the scenarios. Trust in leadership A 2 (identification) · 2 (leader prototypicality) · 2 (goal definition) between subjects ANOVA on trust in leadership yielded a significant main effect of identification, F(1, 87) = 7.14, p = .009, gp 2 = .08, and of leader prototypicality, F(1, 87) = 69.38, p < .001, gp 2 = .44. These main effects were, however, qualified by a significant identification by leader prototypicality interaction, F(1, 87) = 5.13, p = .03, gp 2 = .06. Participants in the low identification condition trusted the prototypical leader more (M = 4.86, SD = 1.05) than the non-prototypical one (M = 3.42, SD = 1.36), F(1, 87) = 18.18, p < .001, gp 2 = .17. This effect, however, was more than twice as strong within the high identification condition (high leader prototypicality: M = 6.04, SD = .83; low leader prototypicality: M = 3.51, SD = 1.30), F(1, 87) = 56.75, p < .001, gp 2 = .40. Thus, leader prototypicality had a stronger impact on trust in leadership for the participants who envisioned to identify strongly (vs. weakly) with their team. This analysis yielded no other effects. Leadership effectiveness A 2 (identification) · 2 (leader prototypicality) · 2 (goal definition) between-subjects ANOVA on perceptions of leadership effectiveness yielded a main effect of identification, F(1, 87) = 9.14, p = .003, gp 2 = .10, a main effect of leader prototypicality, F(1, 87) = 8.07, p = .006, gp 2 = .09, and a marginally significant identification by leader prototypicality interaction effect, F(1, 87) = 3.78, p = .06, gp 2 = .04. These main effects and the two-way interaction were, however, qualified by the expected three-way interaction, F(1, 87) = 5.71, p = .02, gp 2 = .06 (see Table 6). We predicted a leader prototypicality by goal definition interaction on perceptions of leadership effectiveness within the high identification condition but not within the low identification condition. Simple interaction analyses were conducted within the conditions of identification. There was no simple interaction effect within the low identification condition, F(1, 87) = 1.54, p = .22, gp 2 = .02. In contrast, we found a significant simple interaction effect within the high identification condition, F(1, 87) = 4.58, p = .03, gp 2 = .05. Additional simple main effect analyses indicated that leader prototypicality did not significantly influence the participants’

29

Table 6 Means and standard deviations of leadership effectiveness as a function of identification, leader prototypicality, and goal definition (Study 4) Identification

Low identification

High identification

Leader prototypicality

Prototypical M SD Non-prototypical M SD Prototypical M SD Non-prototypical M SD

Goal definition Maximal

Minimal

2.38 .94

2.44 .96

2.57 1.26

1.86 .79

3.99 1.20

3.01 1.10

2.28 .98

2.63 1.19

Note. Leadership effectiveness was measured on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (low leadership effectiveness) to 7 (high leadership effectiveness).

evaluations of leadership effectiveness within the high identification/minimal goal condition, F(1, 87) = .80, p = .38, gp 2 = .01. However, participants evaluated prototypical (vs. non-prototypical) leaders as more effective within the high identification/maximal goal condition, F(1, 87) = 15.37, p < .001, gp 2 = .15. Perceived leader responsibility A 2 (identification) · 2 (leader prototypicality) · 2 (goal definition) between subjects ANOVA on perceived responsibility yielded neither main effects nor interaction effects (all Fs < 1.54). Thus, responsibility attributions did not differ between conditions. Analyses of conditional indirect effects As in the former two studies, we again used the procedure to test moderated mediation suggested by Preacher et al. (in press). Again, we tested the full four-step procedure. We tested our model within the high identification condition. In Step 3 and Step 4, we tested the specific conditional indirect effects for the minimal and maximal goal condition. The Mediator Variable Model indicated that leader prototypicality significantly predicted trust in leadership (see Table 7 for all statistics). The significant interaction between trust in leadership and goal definition in the second step implies that the indirect effect of leader prototypicality on leadership effectiveness through trust in leadership is moderated by goal definition. In addition, the sign of the interaction indicates that the indirect effect is larger for the maximal than the minimal goal condition. Subsequent tests of the conditional indirect effects with normality assumptions (Step 3) as well as with a bootstrapping procedure (Step 4) shows that the indirect effect is only significant within the maximal, but not within the minimal goal condition. In sum,

30

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

Table 7 Test of the conditional indirect effects in Study 3 (within the high identification condition) b

SE b

t

p

Mediator Variable Model (Step 1) Leader prototypicality

1.26

.16

8.04

<.001

Dependent Variable Model (Step 2) Leader prototypicality Trust in leadership Goal definition Goal definition · trust in leadership

.21 .23 .13 .27

.24 .14 .15 .09

.88 1.57 .87 2.90

.39 .12 .39 .006

SE

z

.05 .63

.22 .23

.24 2.75

.81 .006

Conditional indirect effects with bootstrap method (Step 4) Minimal goal level .05 Maximal goal level .64

.27 .22

.17 2.92

.86 .003

Level of goal definition Conditional indirect effects (Step 3) Minimal goal level Maximal goal level

Indirect effect

the moderated mediation analysis once more provides support for our model. Discussion The results of Study 4 corroborate the results of the other studies. In addition they show that as predicted team identification moderated the interactive effect of leader prototypicality and goal definition. Only when participants imagined themselves in the role of a strongly identifying team member did information about leader prototypicality and goal definition interact to influence perceptions of leadership effectiveness. An obvious caveat of this study is the role playing scenario paradigm. Nevertheless, the results confirm the results found in the field (Study 3) and in the laboratory (Study 1). Thus, together with the other studies, Study 4 bolsters the confidence in our theoretical framework and our specific model. In addition, we could again show that responsibility attributions did not have a mediating influence on perceptions of leadership effectiveness.

General discussion Most leaders inevitably have to deal with failures to achieve group or organizational goals. In view of the evidence that people tend to attribute such failures to leadership (Lord et al., 1978; Meindl et al., 1985), an important question from the perspective of leadership effectiveness is which factors may moderate the impact of the failure to achieve goals on leaders’ basis for effective leadership (i.e., followers’ leadership endorsement). We argue that under certain conditions a failing leader may still be endorsed. Based on a social identity frame-

p

work (Hogg, 2001; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003), we hypothesize that follower perceptions are influenced by perceptions of leader prototypicality (i.e., in how far the leader is perceived as embodying the group’s identity). A more prototypical leader receives more trust in leadership, because he or she is perceived as having the group’s interest at heart (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). This, in turn, gives the leader leeway, in a sense a ‘‘license to fail’’, and results in relatively positive leadership evaluations after failure. However, a straightforward application of the social identity analysis as advanced in previous work (e.g., Hogg, 2001; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003) would not be sufficient to explain leader endorsement after failure. Rather, recognition-based processing (i.e., processing related to the perception of the leader) as well as inference-based processing (i.e., processing related to the outcomes of an event) influence leadership perceptions (Ensari & Murphy, 2003; Lord & Maher, 1991). We therefore argue that goal definition should influence in how far followers provide their leader with leeway to fail. Building on principles determining the valence of events (Brendl & Higgins, 1996; Kessler et al., 2006), we predict that goals can differ in their framing as minimal or maximal, which would affect the perception of deviations from goal achievement. Whereas failure to achieve a maximal goal is evaluated on a continuous scale and therefore leaves leeway for differential evaluations after failure, minimal goal achievement is evaluated in an either-or-fashion and thus leaves no leeway for different evaluations after failure (cf. Kessler et al., 2006; Schubert et al., 2005). Consequently, we argue that the greater trust in prototypical (vs. non-prototypical) leaders only results in relatively positive evaluations

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

of leadership after failure if the goal definition is maximal (vs. minimal). The current research supports this model in a series of four studies using different paradigms and populations of participants. Implications for the social identity analysis of leadership Consistent with the social identity analysis of leadership, the current findings suggest that leader prototypicality may color responses to leader failure to achieve performance goals, and that this effect of prototypicality derives from followers’ greater trust in prototypical leaders (Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). However, so far, the social identity analysis of leadership has been mainly an analysis of social influence processes based on group membership (i.e., leader prototypicality) or leader behavior. An understanding of how followers evaluate leaders after performance feedback also requires consideration of the actual performance goal. We argue that leader prototypicality would lead followers to view leader failure to reach performance goals in a relatively favorable light. Goal definitions (in terms of minimal vs. maximal goals) feed into the subjective room for interpretation of failure to achieve a goal, and should therefore moderate the influence of leader prototypicality via trust in leadership. By thus integrating insights from goal definition theory (Brendl & Higgins, 1996; Kessler et al., 2006) into the social identity analysis of leadership, we are able to more fully and firmly extend the social identity analysis to leadership endorsement after failure. A central variable in our model is trust in leadership. The social identity analysis of leadership also identifies a number of other factors that either feed into trust in leadership or that render followers more sensitive to leader prototypicality (cf. van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). On the basis of the current analysis, we would expect that these factors may also affect the influence of goal achievement on leadership endorsement. More specifically, the social identity analysis points to leader group-oriented behavior—leader behavior that suggest that the leader is committed to the group and acts with the group’s best interest in mind—as a source of trust in leadership (Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg (2005) for instance showed that leader self-sacrifice on behalf of the group or organization increased followers’ trust in the leader’s group-orientedness, and rendered non-prototypical leaders as effective as prototypical leaders in eliciting positive perceptions of leadership and engendering follower performance. Accordingly, we may predict that leader group-oriented behaviors such as leader self-sacrifice, group-favoring decisions (Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001), or appeals to the collective interest (Platow et al., 2006) increase trust in leadership and thus render follower responses

31

to leader failure to achieve performance goals relatively more favorable. Recently, van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, and De Cremer (2005) have shown that leader procedural fairness (De Cremer et al., 2005; De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2002) may similarly increase trust in leadership (cf. Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler, & Martin, 1997) and render non-prototypical leaders as effective in eliciting follower cooperative behavior as prototypical leaders. Thus, we may predict that leader procedural fairness may also protect leaders to a certain extent against negative reactions after failure to reach group or organizational goals. An interesting direction for future research might be to look into changes of trust in leadership as a result of performance information. We argue that a prototypical leader elicits more trust in leadership or idiosyncrasy credit than a non-prototypical leader. The prototypical leader might, however, lose these credits if he or she fails. In contrast, a non-prototypical leader might not have that many credits to lose anyway. In other words, we used a rather fixed conceptualization of trust in leadership in this research, but we would assume that this variable is dynamic over time. Regulatory foci and prior leader performance as precursors to goal definition The present findings show that goal definition in terms of minimal vs. maximal goals (Brendl & Higgins, 1996; Kessler et al., 2006) moderates the impact of leader prototypicality via trust in leadership on perceptions of leadership effectiveness. An implication of this finding is that factors that affect followers’ subjective goal definition (i.e., followers’ subjective perception of performance goals) may inform leadership endorsement after leader failure to reach performance goals. Research on minimal vs. maximal goal definition suggests two such factors. Research by Idson, Liberman, and Higgins (2000) suggests that the differentiation between minimal and maximal goals may be related to different regulatory systems. Regulatory Focus Theory differentiates two distinct regulatory systems: a promotion focus concerned with nurturance and a prevention focus concerned with security (Higgins, 1997, 1998). Promotion focus concerns involve individuals’ self-regulation in relation to their hopes and aspirations (i.e., ideals). Success and failure under a promotion focus are experienced as the presence of positive outcomes (i.e., gains) and the absence of positive outcomes (i.e., non-gains). Prevention focus concerns involve individuals’ self-regulation in relation to their duties and obligations (i.e., oughts). Success and failure under a prevention focus are experienced as the presence of negative outcomes (i.e., loss) and the absence of negative outcomes (i.e., non-loss).

32

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

Individuals can chronically and situationally differ in self-regulatory focus. Furthermore, individuals with a promotion focus may be more likely to perceive personal goals as maximal, whereas individuals with a prevention focus may be more likely to perceive personal goals as minimal (Brendl & Higgins, 1996; Idson et al., 2000). Whereas Regulatory Focus Theory explains individual motivations and feelings about personal goals, our research concentrates on perceived goals for a leader (i.e., another individual). In this sense our research cannot be equated with research on Regulatory Focus Theory. However, recent research showed that selfregulation operates on a group level if individuals categorize themselves as group members (Sassenberg, Kessler, & Mummendey, 2003). In other words, events that are relevant for the group become relevant for individual’s self-regulation. The leader’s performance most often is relevant for followers, because they depend on the leader. Therefore, we may speculate that individual regulatory foci of followers might influence how leaders’ performance on goals is perceived. In other words, situational or individual differences associated with the activation of promotion focus concerns vs. prevention focus concerns might affect not only the personal goal definition in terms of maximal vs. minimal goals, but also how followers perceive goal definitions of leaders. A bit more speculatively, we may also predict that prior performance affects subjective goal definition (cf. Brendl & Higgins, 1996). Leaders’ performance on goal achievement typically is not a one-shot event, but may also be judged in the light of prior achievements of the leader. Thus, previous success or failure of the leader might influence followers’ leadership perceptions after failure. One may speculate that a history of failure renders it more likely that future performance goals will be seen as minimal goals—after repeated failure, there may be little patience with failure to achieve performance goals and a clear desire for success in goal achievement. Vice versa, a history of success may render a perception of future goals as maximal goals more likely. Thus, prior performance of the leader may affect follower subjective goal definition, and therefore affect leadership perceptions after failure. Again, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and future research will have to prove the merits of these propositions. Caveats and limitations Of course, the present study is not without its weaknesses and limitations. Each paradigm we used has certain weaknesses in terms of causality, generalization, manipulation, or measurement. For instance, participants were placed in a minimal social environment in Study 1 or had to imagine a leader in Study 2 and 4. Although we used a critical incident technique so that

participants had to evaluate real cases of leader failure in Study 3, the paradigm might be influenced by hindsight biases. However, the strength lies in the overall consistent effects in all four studies. Our model provides a parsimonious explanation of the results in all studies. Another issue to consider is that while our studies provide insight into the factors affecting responses to leader failure to achieve group or organizational goals, this does not mean that more favorable responses are more desirable (or less desirable) from the perspective of the group or organization. More favorable responses may be assumed to be more desirable from the perspective of the leader, or put differently, from the perspective of leadership effectiveness, which is typically defined as the leaders’ ability to influence and mobilize followers (Chemers, 2001; Yukl, 2001). From the perspective of the group or organization, however, responses to leader failure seem to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, continuing endorsement of failing and incompetent leaders would seem highly undesirable, and relatively favorable responses to leaders associated with failure to achieve performance goals may be a bad thing from the perspective of the organization. On the other hand, the very issue raised by Lord, Meindl, and others (e.g., Lord et al., 1978; Meindl et al., 1985) was that people may over-attribute performance outcomes to leadership, and from that perspective some constraint in judging leaders negatively after failure to reach performance goals would seem in order. Moreover, from the perspective of group and organizational learning and innovation it would seem important that there is some room for errors, mistakes, and failure to reach performance goals, and a tendency to pass harsh judgment on leaders associated with failure might be a negative thing. Thus, the present findings should be seen as pertaining to leaders’ basis for leadership effectiveness, and should be treated more carefully when it comes to conclusions regarding the more desirable outcomes for groups and organizations. Implications for leadership practice Although we should be careful not to build too big a claim about the implications of the current findings for practice, they do point at some issues that might be considered from a more applied point of view. First, although responding relatively favorably or unfavorably to leaders associated with failure to realize group or organizational goals is not categorically good or bad, we should be aware of the fact that leader prototypicality and goal definition, and probably also (other) factors that influence trust in leadership, sensitivity to prototypicality, or goal definition, color responses to leadership after failure. Thus, for decisions about leadership (e.g., promotion decisions) that are contingent on leader per-

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

formance, organizations should not only be aware of the general ‘‘romance of leadership’’ (Meindl et al., 1985) but also of more specific factors moderating this romance. Prototypicality is not merely a ‘‘given’’. Leaders may also actively manage the extent to which they convey an image of prototypicality (Reicher & Hopkins, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003), and the present findings suggest that effective ‘‘prototypicality management’’ may inoculate the leader’s basis for leadership effectiveness to a certain extent against the negative consequences of failure to realize group and organizational goals. In a similar vein, to the extent that leaders can actively manage goal definitions, framing goals as maximal goals may provide leaders with somewhat of a safety net in case of failure to reach goals. As yet, most evidence for leaders’ ability to actively manage such perceptions is qualitative (Reicher & Hopkins, 2003), and further research addressing these issues

33

may also yield important implications for leadership practice. To conclude Associations of leaders with success or failure to achieve group or organizational goals arguably are one of the more important influences on leadership perceptions, and consequently on leaders’ basis to influence and mobilize followers. From that perspective, it is somewhat surprising that research to date seems to have hardly moved beyond the ‘‘main effect’’ of performance feedback described by Lord, Meindl, and others (for an exception see Ensari & Murphy, 2003). The present study hopes to have given this area of research new impetus by pointing at the value of an analysis of responses to leader goal achievement in terms of social identity and goal definition processes.

Appendix A Competing statements of the Minimal/Maximal Scale Minimal goal

Maximal goal

1

I think that this goal was only about reaching or not reaching and nothing in between

I think that this goal was about reaching it and a deviation of not reaching it can be tolerated

2

I think that this goal must be at least reached by the leader. Hence, everything below this goal is a clear failure

I think that this goal is more an ideal goal for the leader. Hence, not reaching this goal is not necessarily a clear failure

3

I believe that this goal was termed: ‘‘The leader must at least get 200 points’’!

I believe that this goal was termed: ‘‘The leader should ideally get about 200 points’’!

4

I think that not reaching the goal was not an option for the leader

I think that not reaching the goal was still possible for the leader

5

The leader should never and under no circumstances fail this goal

The leader could fail this goal, although he should try to avoid if possible

References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39. Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 345–373. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370. Birnbaum, M. H. (2004). Human research and data collection via the Internet. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 803–832. Brendl, C. M., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Principles of judging valence: What makes events positive or negative? In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 95–160). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324. Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J. P., Tyler, T. R., & Martin, C. (1997). When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 558–583.

34

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35

Brown, D. J., Cober, R. T., Kane, K., Levy, P. E., & Shalhoop, J. (2006). Proactive personality and the successful job search: A field investigation with college graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 717–726. Chemers, M. M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: An integrative review. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 376–399). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2002). How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 858–866. De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2004). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader selfconfidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95, 140–155. De Cremer, D., van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D., Mullenders, D., & Stinglhamber, F. (2005). Rewarding leadership and fair procedures as determinants of self-esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 3–12. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611–628. Edwards, J.R., & Lambert, L.S. (in press). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods. Efron, B., & Tibishirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall. Ensari, N., & Murphy, S. E. (2003). Cross-cultural variations in leadership perceptions and attribution of charisma to the leader. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 52–66. Hains, S. C., Hogg, M. A., & Duck, J. M. (1997). Self-categorization and leadership: Effects of group prototypicality and leader stereotypicality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1087–1100. Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organisations: The social identity approach. London: Sage. Haslam, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., Platow, M. J., & Ellemers, N. (Eds.). (2003). Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice. New York: Psychology Press. Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575–604. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1–46). New York: Academic Press. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge. Hogg, M. A., Hains, S. C., & Mason, I. (1998). Identification and leadership in small groups: Salience, frame of reference, and leader stereotypicality effects on leader evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1248–1263. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and selfcategorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140. Hogg, M. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Social identity and leadership processes in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 1–52). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Hollander, E. P. (1964). Leaders, groups, and influence. New York: Oxford University Press. Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus

perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 252–274. Kessler, T., Neumann, J., Mummendey, A., Schubert, T., & Waldzus, S. (2006). Minimum goal representation as determinant of explicit rejection and exclusion of deviants. submitted for publication. Kraut, R., Olson, J., Banaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J., & Couper, M. (2004). Psychological research online: Report of board of scientific affairs’ advisory group on the conduct of research on the internet. American Psychologist, 59, 105–117. Locke, E. A. (Ed.). (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field settings: Research findings from industrial-organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and human resources management. Lexington, MA: Heath-Lexington Books. Lockwood, C.M., & MacKinnon, D.P. (1998). Bootstrapping the standard error of the mediated effect. Proceedings of the 23rd annual meeting of SAS Users Group International (pp. 997–1002). Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc. Lord, R. G., Binning, J. F., Rush, M. C., & Thomas, J. C. (1978). The effect of performance cues and leader behavior on questionnaire ratings of leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 27–39. Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & Phillips, J. S. (1982). A theory of leadership categorization. In J. G. Hunt, U. Sekaran, & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: Beyond establishment views. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. (2003). Identity, leadership categorization and leadership schema. In D. van Knippenberg & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 48–64). London: Sage. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman. Meindl, J. R., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1987). The romance of leadership and the evaluation of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 91–109. Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78–102. Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 379–387. Morgan-Lopez, A. A., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2006). Demonstration and evaluation of a method to assess mediated moderation. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 77–87. Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and meditation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852–863. Phillips, J. S., & Lord, R. G. (1981). Causal attributions and perceptions of leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Behavior, 28, 143–163. Platow, M. J., Haslam, S. A., Foddy, M., & Grace, D. M. (2003). Leadership as the outcome of self-categorization processes. In D. van Knippenberg & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 34–47). London: Sage. Platow, M. J., & van Knippenberg, D. (2001). A social identity analysis of leadership endorsement: The effects of leader ingroup prototypicality and distributive intergroup fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1508–1519. Platow, M. J., van Knippenberg, D., Haslam, S. A., van Knippenberg, B., & Spears, R. (2006). A special gift we bestow on you for being representative of us: Considering leader charisma from a selfcategorization perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 303–320. Preacher, K.J., Curran, P.J., & Bauer. D.J. (2003, September). Probing interactions in multiple linear regression, latent curve analysis, and hierarchical linear modeling: Interactive calculation tools for establishing simple intercepts, simple slopes, and regions of significance [Computer software]. Available from .

S.R. Giessner, D. van Knippenberg / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008) 14–35 Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., & Hayes, A.F. (in press). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731. Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N. (2003). On the science of the art of leadership. In D. van Knippenberg & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 197–209). London: Sage. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rotter, J. B. (1982a). Social learning and clinical psychology: Basic concepts. In J. B. Rotter (Ed.), The development and applications of social learning theory (pp. 49–143). New York: CBS Educational and Professional Publishing, Original work published in 1954. Rotter, J. B. (1982b). Some implications of a social learning theory for the practice of psychotherapy. In J. B. Rotter (Ed.), The development and applications of social learning theory (pp. 237–262). New York: CBS Educational and Professional Publishing, Original work published in 1970. Rush, M. C., Thomas, J. C., & Lord, R. G. (1977). Implicit leadership theory: A potential threat to the internal validity of leader behavior questionnaires. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 93–110. Sassenberg, K., Kessler, T., & Mummendey, A. (2003). Less negative = more positive? Social discrimination as avoidance or approach. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 48–58. Schubert, T.W., Mummendey, A., Waldzus, S., & Kessler, T. (2005). Minimal goals and the exclusion of goal violators: The good, the not so good, and the ugly. Submitted for publication. Shamir, B. (1992). Attribution of influence and charisma to the leader: The romance of leadership revisited. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 386–407.

35

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 660–671. van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., & De Cremer, D. (2005, May). Extending the social identity model of leadership: The interactive effects of leader prototypicality and leader procedural fairness. Paper presented at the European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology, Istanbul, Turkey. van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Kramer (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 25, pp. 243–295). Amsterdam: Elsevier. van Knippenberg, B., Martin, L., & Tyler, T. (2006). Processorientation vs. outcome-orientation during organizational change: the role of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 685–704. van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader selfsacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 25–37. van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825–856. Yukl, G. (2001). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.