ABSTRACT
When one thinks of a hero, one thinks of a leader. Leaders are an integral and coveted part of social life because they are essential for navigating their groups through murky waters and troubled times. When they succeed in doing so, they are raised up by the group and become a hero in their followers’ eyes. From a young age, most people dream about becoming leaders of their group, perhaps even the world, in part because they strongly desire the many benefits that are bestowed upon leaders. In return for bestowing valuable resources upon leaders, followers expect that leaders use their influence for the good of the group (e.g., van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008). Unfortunately, not all leaders use their position of privilege equally. Some use it for the
betterment of others, while others use it for shameless self-enrichment. As an example of the former, Abraham Lincoln (former President of the United States) maneuvered an entire country through difficult times, worked selflessly to inspire his followers, and consolidated conflicts. Such examples highlight the great potential that leaders can have for acting as a hero. Yet other leaders grossly misuse their influence to exploit adherents for personal gain. Abusive tyrants such as Joseph Stalin (former General Secretary of the Soviet Union), Kim Jong-un (the supreme leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) or Baschar al-Assad (President of Syria) act in stark contrast to the ideal of heroic leadership. Abuse of power is not limited to extreme cases. Relatively milder cases of ill-suited leaders (or mini tyrants) are prevalent in every-day life, as suggested by the finding that only half of all American employees were satisfied with their boss (Conference Board, 2010). Which factors determine whether leaders use their influence to elevate others (thereby acting
as a hero) or themselves (thereby potentially acting as a tyrant)? In this chapter, we sketch a simple yet comprehensive framework which can help explain when and why leaders behave in desirable or undesirable ways. To do so, we elucidate how two seemingly similar yet very different aspects of social hierarchies-status and power-can influence leadership. We then build on these differences in social hierarchies by examining how individual motivations toward prestige and dominance interact with structural forms of social hierarchies to influence leadership behavior. Finally, we examine how leaders react to power and status threats. A second aim of this chapter is to provide practical guidance. Knowledge about status and
power helps to sort out undesirable candidates who strive to hoard the social and material benefits of power for themselves. It also helps to clarify how social hierarchies and leadership
positions can be managed structurally in order to maximize the benefits and minimize the detriments of leadership (see also Hersey & Blanchard, 1993; Northouse, 2015). This chapter is organized as follows. The first half of the chapter theoretically differentiates
status and power. We describe why power and status were selected throughout evolutionary history, identify empirically validated antecedents of power and status, and discuss the nature of power and status hierarchies in modern societies. The second half of the chapter examines how power and status relate to leadership outcomes. We explore why a person who is respected may be easily awarded power, and how being awarded structural power independently of status often fosters self-oriented behavior in the intended leader. Lastly, we discuss theoretically and practically relevant moderators that identify when and why structural power can produce heroic leaders.
