An exploration of romance of leadership in times of crisis: Replication and extension of theory

Abstract

Romance of leadership (ROL) theory describes over-attributions of responsibility for organizational outcomes to leaders. The theory posits that ROL should be stronger during crisis, for unexpected performance, and in scapegoating failure. We replicate Meindl et al. (1985, study 6) to test those original tenets with greater power and a more generalizable sample. Study 1 does not replicate the 1985 study, and our results suggest crisis does not affect ROL, meaning that leaders are not held more responsible under crisis conditions versus non-crisis conditions. In study 2, participants attributed significantly more responsibility to leaders for non-crisis than crisis conditions. Contrary to our expectations, we found that leaders were held more responsible for success than for failure, suggesting that heroic leadership generated more ROL than scapegoating. Also, in study 2, participants attributed more responsibility to leaders for unexpected versus expected outcomes. Adding the nature of crisis (product failure vs. product harm crises) in study 2 did not lead to any expected differences. Our results from the exploration of untested theory in these two studies reject early tenets of ROL as being greater in times of crisis or for blame. We discuss implications for the ROL theory and broader leadership research.