Transgressive Leaders: A Growing Phenomenon

An alarming trend has emerged in recent years: the rise of transgressive leaders. These individuals, often in positions of power, engage in behavior that would normally be considered unacceptable, yet they continue to garner support and even admiration from their followers. From corporate executives to politicians, transgressive leaders are becoming increasingly prevalent, and it’s essential to understand the underlying reasons for their appeal.

Source: cdn2.psychologytoday.com

A recent study of 246 incidents of norm-violating behavior revealed that only about a third of the cases elicited explicitly negative reactions. In the remaining cases, reactions were neutral, mixed, or even positive. This phenomenon is puzzling, given that cultures around the world emphasize the importance of doing good and the value of a virtuous life.

Understanding the Appeal of Transgressive Leaders

Psychological research offers three interrelated explanations for the appeal of transgressive leaders. Firstly, moral judgments are not absolute; they are malleable and context-dependent. What may seem like basic moral principles are not equally shared by everyone. For instance, whereas notions of honesty and equality are central to the worldviews of progressive-liberal individuals, conservative individuals place relatively more value on (cultural) ‘purity’ and loyalty.

Moreover, preferences for moral qualities in others are remarkably elastic. If people stand to gain from another’s transgressions, their preferences can shift from moral to immoral conduct. For example, people respond more leniently to others’ norm-violating behavior when they derive (financial) gains from that behavior.

Other work shows that preferences for moral versus immoral traits in others depend on one’s current goals. In one study, participants playing the role of defense attorney (whose objective was to secure a non-guilty verdict from a jury) reported greater liking of a merciful rather than a merciless jury member. However, those in the role of prosecuting attorney (whose objective was to secure a guilty verdict) preferred a merciless to a merciful jury member. In other words, when a harsher approach was conducive to people’s goals, their preferences for moral versus immoral traits shifted.

The Power and Dominance of Transgressive Leaders

Secondly, people who break the rules radiate an aura of power and dominance. Breaking rules comes with a risk of backlash, but by knowingly flouting rules, individuals signal that they can withstand any repercussions—a sign of power. Indeed, several studies show norm violators are perceived as more powerful and dominant than norm abiders. Such perceptions fit the romance of the ‘strong leader’ and fuel the impression that transgressive leaders get things done.

Transgressive leaders are particularly attractive when their actions (appear to) benefit others. In a series of experiments, participants voluntarily granted power and leadership to another person who exhibited ‘prosocial’ norm violations. For instance, in one study, participants conferred power and control over monetary outcomes to a confederate who stole coffee from the experimenter and also offered them a cup.

The Threat Narrative and Transgressive Leaders

Thirdly, research shows that dominant leaders are most attractive in times of economic uncertainty, conflict, and competition, when people tend to look for leaders who can ward off apparent threats. Accordingly, support for transgressive leaders increases in competitive situations. It is no coincidence that autocratic leaders habitually point to the danger of ‘hostile elements,’ such as the independent press, immigrants, or the liberal elite. The greater the perceived threat, the greater the attractiveness of transgressive leaders.

Successful autocrats often spin their transgressions as solving the problems of ordinary people. By fabricating or exaggerating enemy threats, they pave the way for unlawful countermeasures that purportedly eliminate those threats. Thus, they simultaneously suggest a solution to a problem and bolster their perceived effectiveness as leaders by fueling perceptions of dominance and power.

Countering the Appeal of Transgressive Leaders

A common reaction to the rise of transgressive leaders is moral outrage, which leads opponents to criticize the immorality of their acts. However, this reaction is not sufficient to counter the appeal of transgressive leaders. The strategy of moralizing transgressions hinges on the assumption that normative behavior is uniformly appreciated and counternormative behavior frowned upon. However, as we have seen, mounting evidence indicates this assumption is incorrect.

Transgressive leaders derive their popularity at least in part from their bald norm defiance, particularly when it appears to benefit others. Thus, although clarifying norms is important, harping on immorality is unlikely to be effective. What’s more, it can backfire as it makes the leader’s behavior seem even more ballsy.

If the appeal of norm violators hinges on the apparent utility of their behavior, as accumulating evidence suggests, then the remedy is obvious: debunking the idea that breaking rules solves society’s problems. The current analysis suggests two concrete strategies.

Firstly, opponents could dispel the alleged benefits of leaders’ transgressions. While it is typical for transgressive leaders to frame their unlawful behaviors and policies as solutions to pressing problems, their transgressions often do not benefit society; to the contrary, they may damage it. Making that apparent seems critical in counteracting the appeal of transgressive leaders.

Secondly, opponents could challenge transgressive leaders’ common threat narrative. In the face of competition and conflict, transgressive leaders’ aura of dominance is seen as an asset in fighting off the ‘enemy.’ Alleviating perceptions of conflict should lower transgressive leaders’ allure by reducing the utility of dominance.

In short, evidence suggests transgressive leaders are appealing not despite their deviant behavior, but precisely because of it. This paradoxical insight calls for different ways of dealing with them to uphold humane societies.