Norm Violations and Followership: When Does
Breaking the Rules Come with Benefits?
Anna Lotta Michaelsdóttir
Date: 23.06.2016
Student number: 10557091
University of Amsterdam
Advisor: Florian Wanders
Word count: 4523
Abstract
Recent research has shown that violating norms can have positive outcomes for the violator. We sought to expand this knowledge by determining which norm violations are socially permitted. Additionally, we attempted to link norm violations to followership, a practically interesting outcome for leadership studies. First we hypothesised that abiding to group norms would heighten followership, and secondly that simultaneously violating societal norms would have a moderating effect and heighten followership even more. 145 psychology students participated. A story was presented where a target person either abided to or violated group norms, as well as abiding to or violating societal norms. Then, participants’ followership to the target was measured with both a behavioural measure and a questionnaire. No support was found for the hypothesized relationships, but the results indicated that societal norm violations might have a positive effect on followership. This finding is interesting and should be more thoroughly researched. Suggestions of improvement for future studies are discussed.
Norm Violations and Followership: When Does Breaking the Rules Come with Benefits?
Organisational psychologists have been interested in leadership studies for a long time. Scientists have sought to determine the different leadership styles (Graen, Dansereau, & Minami, 1972; Sosik, & Godshalk, 2000; Liu, W., Lepak, Takeuchi, & Sims, 2003) and the personal characteristics (Leban, & Zulauf, 2004; Van Eeden, Cilliers, & Deventer, 2008) needed for leaders to be effective, in hopes of being able to help organisations choose an optimal leader. A recent domain of these leadership studies is research on norm violations and how they link to the violator’s. This stream of research has opened scientists up to the possibility that violating norms in certain circumstances might lead to positive outcomes for the violator (Popa, Philips & Robertson, 2014). For instance, people sometimes perceive norm violators as more powerful than norm abiders (Van Kleef, Homan, Finkenauer, Gündemir & Stamkou, 2011) and afford power to norm violators (Van Kleef, Homan, Finkenauer, Blaker & Heerdink, 2012). These findings are interesting because they draw the focus of leadership studies closer to an important aspect of leadership studies: the followers. Followership has received little attention in past research, despite it being accepted as one of the building blocks of leadership studies (Uhl-Bien, Riggie, Lowe & Carsten, 2014). Norm violations are noticed and evaluated by the people around us on a daily basis: the potential followers. It is their reactions to the norm violations that determine whether the violator receives social benefits or negative consequences in response to the violating behaviour. This paper seeks to build on these findings to try and answer the question: can norms be violated for the purpose of gaining the followership of others? To supplement this research question differing norms and norm violations will be analysed to determine the effects. Hereby, this research study intends to help
expand scientific knowledge on how leaders emerge, so it can be used in organisational practice to identify potential leaders.
Theoretical Framework Norm Violations
Norms are stable, shared conceptions of what is appropriate or inappropriate behaviour in a given social context and thus provide rules on how to behave and what behaviour to expect from others (McKirnan, 1980). These expectations help us interact with one another and make sense of each other’s behaviour. Norms further help us keep our own behaviour in check. Breaking norms usually results in negative responses from those around us (Helweg-Larsen & LoMonaco, 2008; Kam & Bond, 2009) which teaches us not to behave in such a way again (Van Kleef, Wanders, Stamkou & Homan, 2015). Norm violations, defined as “behaviours that infringe one or more rules or principles of proper conduct” (Cialdini & Trost, 1998, cited in Van Kleef et al., 2015, p. 25), intuitively have negative results. Research has supported that violating societal norms has undesirable consequences both on intrapersonal and interpersonal levels. On a personal level, norm violators often feel guilty (Giguère, Lalone & Taylor, 2014; Ersoy, Born, Derous & van der Molen, 2011; Costarelli, 2005), ashamed (Giguère et al., 2014, Ersoy et al., 2011), or disappointed with themselves (Costarelli, 2005). On a social level, norm violators can elicit undesirable reactions in observers. Observers of societal norms often respond negatively to norm violations, ranging from reporting being upset (Helweg-Larsen & LoMonaco, 2008), to feelings of anger (Kam & Bond, 2009; Ohbuchi et al., 2004), shame (Kam & Bond, 2009), and blame (Ohbuchi et al., 2004).
Regardless of these negative consequences, it is a fact that people do violate norms. An explanation might derive from recent research, which has shown that
violating norms can have positive results for the violator (Popa et al., 2014). One of the reasons for these positive results is probably that norm violators are seen as powerful (Van Kleef et al., 2011). Indeed, people in more individualistic countries seem to define powerful individuals as someone who has the liberty to violate societal norms without sanctions (Mondillon et al., 2005). Interestingly, this relationship between power and norm violation seems to be bidirectional: people perceive norm violators as having greater status (Bellezza, Gino & Keinan, 2014) and, under some circumstances, norm violators are even afforded power, e.g. by individuals stating they would like the violator to be their boss or political leader (Van Kleef et al., 2012).
Previous research looked at power by using the measures power perceptions and power affordance but the measure of followership was chosen for the current study. Power perceptions and power affordance are two different constructs that relate to one another. Power perception indicates to what extent observers regard an
individual as holding power, while power affordance demonstrates whether observers consider an individual to be a desirable leader. As discussed in Van Kleef et al. (2012), perceiving someone as powerful and being willing to afford them power are two distinct processes that do not necessarily go together. Although both constructs explain the stance of an individual towards a leader, neither completely incorporates what it is to do as the leader dictates. For instance, understanding that the president is powerful and voting for that individual to stay in office is something else than
following his or her orders on using public transport to decrease global warming. A third construct is needed to complete the circle: followership.
Followership
Followership theory is defined by Uhl-Bien et al. (2014) as “the study of the nature and impact of followers and following in the leadership process” (p. 84). They further describe how followership is an important contribution to leadership theories because individuals attempting to be leaders are only legitimized in the responses and
reception of those willing to follow them. Simply stated; without followers, there can be no leaders. For instance, leadership often derives from having a formal position within a hierarchical organisation, but not all supervisors are seen as leaders (Bedeian & Hunt, 2006). Moreover, some individuals are seen as leaders without having any formal status (Charan, Drotter & Noel, 2000). People could gain followership regardless of their position by using different kinds of power. For example, people with no legitimate power (i.e. deriving from a formal status) could compensate by using some other source of power, such as expert power (Yukl & Falbe, 1991) and so still emerge as a leader. DeRue & Ashford (2010) propose an alternative framework; seeing leadership as a relationship between individuals where people take on either the role of a leader or follower. These identities are reinforced over time with interaction and often with the help of a social structure such as a formal leadership position. This suggests, just as the followership theory, that followers play a much more active role than leadership studies have paid attention to.
As described above, norm violations signal power (Van Kleef et al., 2011), heighten status perceptions (Bellezza et al., 2014) and sometimes lead to the violator being afforded power (Van Kleef et al., 2012). Our expectations of the effects of norm violations on followership flow from these findings. As explained in further detail below, we expect certain norm violations to have positive effects on followership, in
line with the positive effects norm violations have on other domains of power. The different effects of norm violations will now be discussed.
Societal norm violations vs. group norm violations
Individuals’ social behaviour is what determines whether they are granted power or not (Van Kleef et al., 2012). Whether norm violation has positive or negative results for the norm violator is dependent on circumstance. The conditions for an emergence of a positive outcome include the importance of the norm to observers (Popa et al., 2014) and the benefits received by observers as a result of the norm violation (Popa et al., 2014, Van Kleef et al., 2012).
Further, norm violations can be endorsed in order to defend other more important norms. Beersma and Van Kleef (2011) studied gossip in groups and found that gossiping—a norm violation in itself—serves as a tool to control group members and prevent them from violating the group’s more important norms. Additional research showed that gossiping was seen as positive if it was intended to warn group members against a norm violator within the group (Beersma & Van Kleef, 2012). These findings suggest that not all norms are equal, a statement that lies at the heart of this discussion. In order to find what norms may be violated with positive results, we must find what norms are the most important to people.
No norm is universal. That is, the importance of some norms have gained relative consensus, but the perceived value of a norm can vary among individuals depending on their personal background, experiences and psychological profiles (Cialdini & Trost, 1998, cited in Popa et al., 2014). These findings indicate that people differ in what norms they consider less important and are therefore more open for violation. The hierarchy of the importance of norms seems to rely on what peers find important and how they behave accordingly (Cialdini, 2007). The more strongly
one identifies with the group, the more important it is to behave in accordance to said group (Terry, Hogg & White, 1999). These findings also apply to norms. Research shows that societal-level norms can be overruled by group-level norms. This was found to be the case with speeding; individuals who believed people close to them endorsed violating traffic laws were also inclined to do so (Forward, 2009).
Moreover, Cavazza & Serpe (2009) found that industrial workers violated national safety rules more readily when they regarded them as ambivalent.
The findings described above show the importance of group norms above other norms. They do not, on the other hand, describe why violating these other norms could increase followership. One explanation could be Robert’s (1999) theory of
Competitive Altruism. According to this theory, individuals compete to be the most
altruistic in hopes of building their reputation. Even though altruism is risky and can be exploited, Roberts explains that when people compete for high stakes the
investment is worthwhile. In our scenario, the stakes could for instance be emerging as the leader of the group. Behaving altruistically for a group could bring benefits from other group members in the form coalitions that favour the altruistic person (Alexander, 1987, cited in Van Vugt et al., 2007; Nowak & Sigmund, 2005). This kind of coalition could for instance endorse the altruistic behaviour by helping that person to emerge as their leader. Violating societal norms could be seen as a form of altruism, where an individual within the group takes a chance to show the importance of group norms above societal norms. This could in turn benefit the violator buy building his or her reputation (Roberts, 1999), and so lead to more followership.
So, for instance, a psychology student at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) will probably regard the norms of fellow university students as important, but if the norms of psychology students differ in some way from the rest of the students on
campus, psychology students’ norms will be seen as more important. If, in turn, another student of the psychology program violates the norms of the university but abides to the norms of the psychology department, that student sends a signal of the importance of psychology students’ norms above those of the rest of the student body. As a psychology student, one might perceive the norm violator as both powerful and as someone who cares for the group, resulting in heightened followership. However, if the norm violator is not seen as caring for the group but simply as someone who does not abide to norms, there is no good reason to endorse the violating party as a leader. If these considerations are true, violating societal norms will have positive results on the relationship between abiding to group norms and followership. That is, people who abide to group norms and so signal the importance of said group will enjoy more followership than people who violate group norms. People that simultaneously violate societal norms to show they regard the group to be more important than the rest of society should receive even more followership. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H1: Group norm abidance will lead to higher followership than group norm violation. H2: The relationship between group norm abidance (vs. violation) and followership is moderated by societal norm violation in such a way that when societal norms are violated, the relationship between group norm abidance and followership will be stronger.
These hypotheses, which are illustrated in Figure 1, were investigated in a scenario-based experiment.
Figure 1. A process model of the hypothesized relationships.
Method
145 psychology students at the UvA participated in this study alongside two other experiments in exchange for 10 euro or course credit. People who were no longer enrolled in the study program were excluded from the study to try and make sure all participants see themselves as a part of a specific group (i.e. psychology students) within a larger society (UvA students). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions arranged in a 2 (group norm abidance/violation) x 2 (societal norm abidance/violation) factorial design.
All data was obtained using a computer. Participants read a story about how people at the UvA had been asked to divide 100 experimental coins between two similar charities; UNICEF and War Child. Subsequently, participants were told how many coins on average the UvA-students donated to each organisation, as well as how psychology students in particular chose to divide the coins on average. The average UvA-student’s distribution of coins was the appointed societal norm while the average psychology-student’s distribution was the appointed group norm. Finally, participants were shown how a randomly chosen psychology student (target) divided the coins. What differed between the conditions was whether the target abided to or violated the appointed norms. Table 1 provides an overview over the 2(group norms:
abide vs. violate) × 2(societal norms: abide vs. violate) between-subjects design. The target’s distribution was either the same as both the societal norm as well as the group norm (Condition 1 in Table 1), different from the societal norm but the same as the group norm (Condition 2 in Table 1), the same as the societal norm but different from the group norm (Condition 3 in Table 1) or different from both the societal norm as well as the group norm (Condition 4 in Table 1). After receiving this information, participants answered several questions assessing followership.
Table 1
The Information on Coin Distribution Given to People in Each Condition.
NOTE: The assignment of labels to charities (War Child and UNICEF) was counterbalanced, so that for half of the participants the box for War Child was situated on the right and for the other half on the left.
Condition Coin distribution
The average coin distribution for UvA
students
The average coin distribution for psychology students
How the randomly chosen psychology student distributed the coins
1 Group norm abidance & Societal norm abidance 2 Group norm abidance & Societal norm violation 3 Group norm violation & societal norm abidance 4 Group norm violation & societal norm violation
Measures
Followership was measured in two different ways. First, participants were asked to distribute 100 experimental coins between the two charities. Followership was rated by how aligned the participants’ distribution was with that of the target’s. Identical distribution was scored as the highest form of followership (cf. Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). Secondly, participants were asked of their opinion on how the target had chosen to distribute the coins. They were presented with four statements (example:
This distribution has my approval) and gave answers on a 7-point Likert scale,
ranging from Totally disagree to Totally agree (α = .816) (cf. Haslam & Platow, 2001; cf Uhl-Bien et al, 2014). Further, participants were asked about their
identification with the group as well as the society and how they perceived the target to identify with the group and society. People were also asked about their gender, age and study year, i.e. for how long an individual had been a psychology student. Two attention checks were placed inbetween items, where participants were asked to answer with a specific number on the Likert-scale.
Analysis plan
As a manipulation check, a paired-samples t-test was used to compare
participants’ identification with the group, i.e. psychology students, and identification with the society, i.e. UvA students. Next, several separate 2x2 factorial ANOVAS were used to check the manipulation of conditions on perceptions of the target’s behaviour, and to compare the conditions on age, group identification and societal identification as well as study year. Further, crosstabs were used to check the distribution of gender between conditions. To test H1, two independent t-tests were conducted to test whether group norm abidance led to higher followership, one for each followership measure. The hypothesized interaction of H2, that violating societal
norms will strengthen the relationship between group norm abidance and
followership, was tested using two 2x2 factorial ANOVAS; as before, one test was used for each measure of followership.
Results Manipulation checks
Participants who failed to answer attention checks correctly were excluded from the sample. The final data consisted of answers from 133 participants. A paired-samples t-test was used to check how strongly participants identified with UvA students as well as psychology students in particular. Participants reported to identify more strongly with psychology students (M = 4.86, SD = 1.39) than with UvA students (M = 4.55, SD = 1.23), t(132) = -2.646, p = .009. Next, two factorial
ANOVAS were used to assess whether the manipulation was successful, i.e. whether participants interpreted the behaviour of the target as either in abidance to or violation of group norms and societal norms accordingly to their condition. There was a
significant effect of the group norm abidance vs. violation condition on perceptions of target’s group norm behaviour, F(1,129) = 150.116, p < .001, η2 = .538, which is a very large effect. Participants in the group norm abidance condition (n = 67) reported the target’s behaviour as being more in accordance to psychology students’ norms (M = 5.44, SD = 1.04) than participants in the group norm violation condition (n = 66) found the target’s behaviour to be (M = 3.09, SD = 1.18). No other effects were significant. Participants in the societal norm abidance condition (n = 64) reported the target’s behaviour as being more in accordance to UvA students’ norms (M = 5.19,
SD = 1.11) than participants in the societal norm violation condition (n = 69) found
was significant, F(1,129) = 111.192, p < .001, η2 = .436, a very large effect. No other effects were significant. Both manipulations were successful.
Standardisation checks
The conditions were compared on gender, age, group identification and societal identification as well as study year, i.e. how long a person had studied psychology at the UvA. These standardisation checks were conducted using several 2x2 factorial ANOVAS and showed that the individuals in each group did not differ on age (M = 21.68, SD = 3.48), F(1,129) = .093, p = .760, η2 = .001 (group norm abidance vs. violation), and F(1,129) = .31, p = .578, η2 = .002 (societal norm
abidance vs. violation), and had studied for the same amount of time (M = 2.47, SD = 1.76), F(1,129) = 1.602, p = .208, η2 = .012 (group norm abidance vs. violation), and
F(1,129) = .002, p = .964, η2 < .001 (societal norm abidance vs. violation). Further, there was no significant difference between conditions on how strongly participants identified with psychology students (M = 4.86, SD = 1.39), F(1,129) = .088, p = .767, η2
= .001 (group norm abidance vs. violation), and F(1,129) = .706, p = .402, η2 = .005 (societal norm abidance vs. violation), or on identification with UvA students (M = 4.55, SD = 1.23) F(1,133) = .01, p = .921, η2 < .001 (group norm abidance vs. violation) and F(1,129) = .067, p = .796, η2 = .001 (societal norm abidance vs. violation). More females than males participated in the study, but each gender was evenly distributed between the conditions.
Main analysis
H1. Two analyses were used to test H1, one for each measure of followership. For the hypothesis to be supported, participants in the group norm abidance condition should score higher on followership than participants in the group norm violation condition. The coin distribution measure of followership was tested first. An absolute
difference score was calculated for each participant, where a lower score indicated more followership. Contradictory to expectations, an independent t-test showed that participants in the group norm abidance condition had a higher difference score (M = 50.39, SD = 13.24) than participants in the group norm violation condition (M = 49.86, SD = 9.03), but this difference was not significant, t(131) = .267, p = .79 and Cohen’s effect size value, d = .05, was very small. For the second measure of followership, an independent t-test was used to compare main scores of the questionnaires between conditions. As before, participants in the group norm
abidance condition scored slightly lower on followership (M = 3.95, SD = 1.22) than participants in the group norm violation condition (M = 4.16, SD = 1.16). This effect was also non-significant, t(131) = -1.005, p = .317 and the effect size was small, d = 0.18.
H2. A 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted to assess whether societal norm violation strengthened the relationship between group norm abidance and
followership. First, the participations’ distribution difference score was used to measure followership. There was neither a significant effect of group norm abidance vs. violation, F(1,129) = 2.385, p = .125, η2 = .018, nor societal norm abidance vs.
violation, F(1,129) = .418, p = .519, η2 = .003. The interaction was also
non-significant, F(1,129) = 1.907, p = .170, η2 = .015. For means and standard deviations, see Table 2.
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations of Followership Measured by Difference Score.
Societal norm Abidance
M(SD)
Violation M(SD)
Group norm Abidance 7.15(13.56) 5.88(9.25)
Violation 2.1(5.44) 5.6(9.67)
A second 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted, this time the followership measure used was the questionnaire adapted from Haslam & Platow (2001). As before, the effect of abiding to or violating group norms was not significant, F(1,129) = .851, p = .358, η2 = .007. The effect of the societal norm condition was significant, F(1,129) = 13.968, p < .001. Surprisingly, participants in the social norm violation condition were more in favour of the target’s distribution (M = 4.41, SD = 1.04), signalling more followership, than people in the societal norm abidance condition (M = 3.67, SD = 1.23). The effect size was small to medium, η2 = .098. The interaction between the two independent variables was non-significant, F(1,129) = 1.505, p = .222, η2 = .012. Questionnaire score means and standard deviations can be seen in
Table 3 and are depicted in Figure 2. Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations of Followership Questionnaire Scores.
Societal norm Abidance
M(SD)
Violation M(SD)
Group norm Abidance 3.7(1.43) 4.19(.94)
Violation 3.64(1) 4.61(1.11)
NOTE: A higher questionnaire score signals more followership.
Figure 2. Comparisons of mean followership questionnaire scores for participants in each condition.
Discussion
This study investigated the results of norm violations for the violator, specifically whether violating certain norms would be rewarded with followership. We sought to determine whether abiding to group norms heightened followership (H1) and if simultaneously violating societal norms would strengthen this relationship (H2). The results show no support of these hypotheses. There were no significant results for H1 or H2, regardless of which measure for followership was used. Results from the questionnaire measure of followership when testing H2 showed a significant main effect of the societal norm condition on followership: According to these results, societal norm violation leads to higher followership. All other effects tested were non-significant.
As discussed above, earlier research has shown that norm violations can have positive results for the violator (Popa et al., 2014). The positive main effect of societal norm violation on followership fits within this theoretical framework. This might be a representation of reality; people might endorse individuals who are not afraid to speak up and disagree with the rest of society. It seems plausible that the confidence that certain norm violations demonstrate is interpreted as an important quality of a leader, facilitating followership. Thereby this study could be seen as partly successful in providing answers for which norms can be violated with positive results. However, the relationship between societal norm violations and heightened followership was not expected and, moreover, this effect was only significant for one of the two followership measures. More research on this topic is needed before the findings can be established.
As with all studies, the present one had its limitations. A notable shortcoming of this study was the distribution measure of followership. Using experimental coins
that hold no real value could have led participants to take the distribution less
seriously than if they were donating real money. Another idea would have been to ask participants to donate their time to the target in some way, such as helping him/her with a project. This would probably be seen as a larger commitment. Further, the measure is difficult to interpret. Participants might choose to donate to the opposite charity to that of the target not out of lack of followership but out of fairness; as the target had already given to one charity, participants might want to give to the other. Additionally, this measure has not yet been evaluated and so it is difficult to say whether it is strong enough to assess participants’ degree of followership. Future research on the subject should either try to validate this measure of followership, or use other validated measures.
Another limitation of this study is that no identification-cut off score was established. On average, participants identified more strongly with the group than with the society but participants with extremely low identification scores could have influenced the outcome of the study. If the group and/or society hold no value to an individual, a targets’ behaviour in relation to the norms of said population presumably do not matter either. Future studies should keep this in mind and determine a
reasonable cut off score for identification before gathering data.
To conclude, norm violations and the effects thereof is a complicated research domain which scientists have just begun to shed light on. Earlier research has shown that norm violations can have positive results for the violator (Popa, 2014,Van Kleef et al., 2011, Van Kleef et al. 2012), and this study sought to expand knowledge on the subject by determining what norm violations specifically have these benefits.
Although unsuccessful, the study managed to identify some key problems that can arise in this research field and will hopefully aid future research on the matter. More
knowledge on the subject, such as the ability to detect beneficial norm violations, could be a valuable addition to leadership studies and even help identify emerging leaders more successfully in the future.
Literature
Bedeian, A. G., & Hunt, J. G. (2006). Academic amnesia and vestigial assumptions of our forefathers. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 190-205.
Beersma, B., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2011). How the grapevine keeps you in line: Gossip increases contributions to the group. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 1948550611405073.
Beersma, B., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Why people gossip: An empirical analysis of social motives, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 42(11), 2640-2670.
Bellezza, S., Gino, F., & Keinan, A. (2014). The red sneakers effect: Inferring status and competence from signals of nonconformity. Journal of Consumer
Research, 41(1), 35-54.
Cavazza, N., & Serpe, A. (2009). Effects of safety climate on safety norm violations: exploring the mediating role of attitudinal ambivalence toward personal protective equipment. Journal of Safety Research, 40(4), 277-283.
Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2010). The leadership pipeline: How to build the
leadership powered company (Vol. 391). John Wiley & Sons.
Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control. Psychometrika, 72(2), 263-268.
Costarelli, S. (2005). Affective responses to own violations of ingroup norms: The moderating role of norm salience. European Journal of Social
Psychology,35(3), 425-435.
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 35(4), 627-647.
Ersoy, N. C., Born, M. P., Derous, E., & van der Molen, H. T. (2011). Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior among blue-and white-collar workers in Turkey. International journal of intercultural relations, 35(3), 356-367. Forward, S. E. (2009). The theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive
norms and past behaviour in the prediction of drivers’ intentions to violate. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour, 12(3), 198-207.
Giguère, B., Lalonde, R. N., & Taylor, D. M. (2014). Drinking too much and feeling bad about it? How group identification moderates experiences of guilt and shame following norm transgression. Personality and social psychology
bulletin, 40(5), 617-632.
Graen, G., Dansereau, F., & Minami, T. (1972). Dysfunctional leadership styles.Organizational behavior and human performance, 7(2), 216-236. Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2001). The link between leadership and followership:
How affirming social identity translates vision into action. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(11), 1469-1479.
Helweg‐ Larsen, M., & LoMonaco, B. L. (2008). Queuing among U2 fans: Reactions to social norm violations1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,38(9), 2378-2393.
Kam, C. C. S., & Bond, M. H. (2009). Emotional reactions of anger and shame to the norm violation characterizing episodes of interpersonal harm. British journal
Leban, W., & Zulauf, C. (2004). Linking emotional intelligence abilities and
transformational leadership styles. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 25(7), 554-564.
Liu, W., Lepak, D. P., Takeuchi, R., & Sims, H. P. (2003). Matching leadership styles with employment modes: Strategic human resource management
perspective. Human resource management review, 13(1), 127-152. McKirnan, D. J. (1980). The identification of deviance: A conceptualization and
initial test of a model of social norms. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 10(1), 75-93.
Mondillon, L., Niedenthal, P. M., Brauer, M., Rohmann, A., Dalle, N., & Uchida, Y. (2005). Beliefs about power and its relation to emotional experience: A comparison of Japan, France, Germany, and the United States. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(8), 1112-1122.
Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature,437(7063), 1291-1298.
Ohbuchi, K. I., Tamura, T., Quigley, B. M., Tedeschi, J. T., Madi, N., Bond, M. H., & Mummendey, A. (2004). Anger, blame, and dimensions of perceived norm violations: Culture, gender, and relationships. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 34(8), 1587-1603.
Popa, M., Phillips, B. J., & Robertson, C. (2014). Positive outcomes of social norm transgressions. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(5), 351-363.
Roberts, G. (1998). Competitive altruism: from reciprocity to the handicap principle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological
Sciences,265(1394), 427-431.
Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job‐ related stress: a conceptual model and preliminary study.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(4), 365-390
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour: self‐ identity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 38(3), 225-244.
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83-104.
Van Eeden, R., Cilliers, F., & Van Deventer, V. (2008). Leadership styles and
associated personality traits: Support for the conceptualisation of transactional and transformational leadership. South African Journal of Psychology, 38(2), 253-267.
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Finkenauer, C., Blaker, N. M., & Heerdink, M. W. (2012). Prosocial norm violations fuel power affordance. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 937-942.
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Finkenauer, C., Gündemir, S., & Stamkou, E.
(2011). Breaking the rules to rise to power: how Norm Violators gain power in the eyes of others. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(5), 500-507.
Van Kleef, G. A., Wanders, F., Stamkou, E., & Homan, A. C. (2015). The social dynamics of breaking the rules: antecedents and consequences of norm-violating behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 25-31.
Van Vugt, M., Roberts, G., & Hardy, C. (2007). Competitive altruism: Development of reputation-based cooperation in groups. Handbook of evolutionary
Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of applied psychology, 76(3), 416.
