Collective mobilisation as a contest for influence: Leading for change or against the status quo?

Abstract

AbstractLeadership is central to understanding social continuity and change, though rarely features in the study of collective action. Across three experiments (total N = 687), we examine how followers’ support for pro‐change leaders (Experiments 1–3) and pro‐status quo leaders (Experiments 1–2) varies as a function of leader alignment with group normative trajectory, the presence (vs. absence) of competing leaders, and shared group membership with followers. When pro‐change leaders were aligned with the normative trajectory of the group, they elicited higher collective action and voting intentions compared to pro‐status quo leaders (Experiments 1–2). When change leaders were non‐aligned, participants instead supported the pro‐status quo alternative (Experiment 1–2). Finally, the presence of leadership contests with aligned change leaders (Experiment 2) and pro‐status quo leaders (Experiments 2–3) reduced collective action and support for non‐aligned change leaders or those facing a polarised followership. Implications for research at the nexus of leadership and collective action are discussed.