Dominant leaders and the political psychology of followership

A contingency model of the dominance route to influence in work teams: The moderating role of team competition

This paper presents a contingency model on the effectiveness of dominance as a route to influence in organizational work teams. In a field study ( n = 397 members from 54 work teams), we observed that perceived intra-team competition represents a key context factor that moderates the relationship between dominance displays and influence attainment. Although dominant members attained more influence than non-dominant members, their influence was proportionally greater when team competition was high, rather than low. A follow-up scenario experiment ( n = 429 participants) confirmed the proposed causal direction of this interaction effect. Moreover, this study showed that normative evaluations of (non-)dominant behavior drive the findings. Dominance displays were considered more appropriate, normal, and functional (i.e., normative) in teams with high competition, whereas non-dominant behavior was seen as more normative in teams where competition was low. Consequently, non-dominant members also gained influence in this last team situation, reducing the relative influence advantage of dominant members. The results support both the functional view and the contextual value perspective on hierarchy formation in teams, and inform organizations about how they can prevent dominance-based influence processes.

Non-political anger shifts political preferences towards stronger leaders

Past research has shown that anger is associated with support for confrontational and punitive responses during crises, and notably with the endorsement of authoritarian ideologies. One important question is whether it is anger generated specifically in a political context that explains the association between anger and specific political preferences or whether any feeling of anger would be associated with changes in political attitudes. Here, we tested the effect of non-politically motivated incidental anger on the preference for strong leaders. In line with past research, we predicted that anger would increase preferences for strong leaders. Across two experiments, we exposed participants to an anger induction task. Before and after this experimental manipulation, we measured participants' political leader preferences by asking them to choose between the faces of two leaders they would vote for in a hypothetical election. The level of self-reported anger predicted the probability of choosing more dominant-looking and less trustworthy-looking leaders after the induction, suggesting that even non-political incidental anger increases preferences for strong leaders.

Dominant jerks: People infer dominance from the utterance of challenging and offensive statements