Issue contention and consumers’ reactions to corporate social responsibility: Challenging the dyadic assumptions

Two experiments (one fictitious on environmental CSR and one real-life on a company’s social advocacy on gun violence) were conducted to examine how issue contention affects consumers’ reactions to corporate social responsibility (CSR). Results of the two experiments suggest that while issue contention does not lower consumers’ agency, it makes consumers less likely to engage the organization based on their values and beliefs (i.e., symbolic avoidance) regardless of the organization’s viewpoints. The results also suggest that this effect does not directly extend to actual purchase intention, which indicates that actual purchase intention is confounded by both symbolic interactions and tangible factors such as price and corporate expertise. Results of the two experiments provide important implications for public relations research, challenging the dyadic assumptions of organization-public interactions and relationships and calling for further attention on inter-publics and inter-organizations dynamics.     

Leader’s morality,prototypicality, and followers’ reactions

We examine the effects of moral (vs. competent) leadership on followers' leader evaluations and endorsement. In Study 1 (N = 157), followers evaluated a leader more negatively and endorsed them less when they failed on morality than competence. An indirect effect from leader morality to leader evaluation, through perceived group prototypicality emerged, demonstrating the identity-basis of this evaluation. In Studies 2 (N = 150), 3 (N = 297), and 4 (N = 192) participants considered incongruous situations in which the leader failed on morality but succeed on competence, or vice-versa. Followers expressed more negative evaluations and less endorsement of an immoral but competent leader than of a moral but incompetent leader, through group prototypicality. In Study 4, we manipulated group prototypicality. A leader considered prototypical of the group received worse evaluations when they behaved immorally, irrespective of their competence. Results contribute to the understanding of leader-followers dynamics.     

Reconciling identity leadership and leader identity: A dual-identity framework

Research exploring the powerful links between leadership and identity has burgeoned in recent years but cohered around two distinct approaches. Research on identity leadership, the main focus of this special issue, sees leadership as a group process that centers on leaders’ ability to represent, advance, create and embed a social identity that they share with the collectives they lead—a sense of “us as a group”. Research on leader identity sees leadership as a process that is advanced by individuals who have a well-developed personal understanding of themselves as leaders—a sense of “me as a leader”. This article explores the nature and implications of these divergent approaches, focusing on their specification of profiles, processes, pathways, products, and philosophies that have distinct implications for theory and practice. We formalize our observations in a series of propositions and also outline a dual-identity framework with the potential to integrate the two approaches.