When and why leaders put themselves first: leader behaviour in resource allocations as a function of feeling entitled

In this article, we examine how being assigned the role of leader affects behaviour in resource sharing tasks. Previous research has shown that group members anchor their decision on the equal division rule prescribing that resources should be distributed equally. Following notions of equity theory and the literature on role schemas, we expected that adherence to the equal division rule would be moderated by role assignment. In particular, we expected leaders to take more than followers from a common resource and that this effect would be explained in terms of feelings of entitlement. The results of two experimental studies corroborate this reasoning. Study 1 demonstrated that leaders took more than followers and that leaders deviated more strongly from the equal division rule. In Study 2, it was found that legitimate leaders took more from the resource and deviated more strongly from the equal division rule than non-legitimate leaders. Additional analyses suggest that the leaders' tendency to make higher allocations to the self can be explained by feelings of entitlement.

[1]  J. S. Adams,et al.  Inequity In Social Exchange , 1965 .

[2]  G. W. Walster,et al.  New directions in equity research. , 1973 .

[3]  Jerome M. Chertkoff,et al.  A bargaining theory of coalition formation. , 1973 .

[4]  M. Deutsch.  Equity, Equality, and Need: What Determines Which Value Will Be Used as the Basis of Distributive Justice? , 1975 .

[5]  R. Harris,et al.  What's fair? It depends on how you phrase the question. , 1980 .

[6]  David M. Messick,et al.  INDIVIDUAL ADAPTATIONS AND STRUCTURAL-CHANGE AS SOLUTIONS TO SOCIAL DILEMMAS , 1983 .

[7]  R. Ritchie,et al.  Assessment center correlates of women's advancement into middle management: A 7-year longitudinal analysis. , 1983 .

[8]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  David M. Messick,et al.  Scarcity or abundance caused by people or the environment as determinants of behavior in the resource dilemma , 1987 .

[10]  Alice H. Eagly,et al.  Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. , 1989 .

[11]  David M. Messick,et al.  Social Decision Heuristics in the Use of Shared Resources , 1990 .

[12]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Social cognition, 2nd ed. , 1991 .

[13]  Elizabeth A. Mannix,et al.  Organizations as Resource Dilemmas: The Effects of Power Balance on Coalition Formation in Small Groups , 1993 .

[14]  S. Fiske.  Social cognition and social perception. , 1993, Annual review of psychology.

[15]  S. Fiske,et al.  Controlling other people. The impact of power on stereotyping. , 1993, The American psychologist.

[16]  Scott T. Allison,et al.  Cognitive Factors Affecting the Use of Social Decision Heuristics in Resource-Sharing Tasks , 1994 .

[17]  S. Blount.  When Social Outcomes Aren't Fair: The Effect of Causal Attributions on Preferences , 1995 .

[18]  Eric van Dijk,et al.  Coordination rules in asymmetric social dilemmas: a comparison between public good dilemmas and resource dilemmas , 1995 .

[19]  S. Reid,et al.  Endorsement of distributively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations. , 1997 .

[20]  S. Reid,et al.  Leadership Endorsement: The Role of Distributive and Procedural Behavior in Interpersonal and Intergroup Contexts , 1998 .

[21]  Americus Reed,et al.  A Social Dilemma Perspective on Cooperative Behavior in Organizations , 1998 .

[22]  C. McGarty,et al.  Inspecting the emperor's clothes: Evidence that random selection of leaders can enhance group performance. , 1998 .

[23]  Dent,et al.  Cognitive Load and the Equality Heuristic: A Two-Stage Model of Resource Overconsumption in Small Groups. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[24]  S. Fiske,et al.  Power Can Bias Impression Processes: Stereotyping Subordinates by Default and by Design , 2000 .

[25]  Michael A. Hogg,et al.  A Social Identity Theory of Leadership , 2001 .

[26]  D. Cremer,et al.  Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach , 2001 .

[27]  Marta M. Elvira,et al.  Pay Me Now or Pay Me Later , 2001 .

[28]  David De Cremer,et al.  Charismatic Leadership and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Matter of Transforming Motives?1 , 2002 .

[29]  D. Cremer,et al.  How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness. , 2002 .

[30]  Dale T. Miller,et al.  Fairness Judgements as Cognitions , 2002 .

[31]  David De Cremer,et al.  Intergroup and Intragroup Aspects of Leadership in Social Dilemmas: A Relational Model of Cooperation , 2002 .

[32]  Michael Ross,et al.  The Justice Motive in Everyday Life: Subject Index , 2002 .

[33]  D. Cremer.  Why inconsistent leadership is regarded as procedurally unfair: the importance of social self‐esteem concerns , 2003 .

[34]  D. De Cremer.  How Self-Conception May Lead to Inequality , 2003 .

[35]  Kelly S. Fielding,et al.  Leaders and their treatment of subgroups: implications for evaluations of the leader and the superordinate group , 2003 .

[36]  L. Perlow,et al.  Is silence killing your company? , 2003, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[37]  David De Cremer,et al.  How Self-Conception May Lead to Inequality Effect of Hierarchical Roles on the Equality Rule in Organizational Resource-Sharing Tasks , 2003 .

[38]  R. Burke,et al.  Leadership in organizations , 2006 .