Through the lens of the social identity approach (Haslam, 2004; Hogg & Terry, 2001) and in particular, the subjective group dynamics (SGD) model (Abrams, Randsley de Moura, Hutchison, & Viki, 2005) and an organisational justice perspective (Tyler & Blader, 2003), the current program of research set out to explore, in two phases, how anti-norm leaders can mitigate negative responses by their group members when they wish to lead their group towards the prescriptive norms of an outgroup. The first phase of the research, comprising three pilot tests, and Study 1, Study 2a and 2b investigated how anti-norm leaders were judged by ingroup members, and two possible moderators of this effect. Study 1 aimed to replicate the basic findings of Abrams et al. (2008) and explore whether group members’ evaluations of normative and deviant leaders would be moderated by the leaders’ method of gaining leadership (appointed vs. elected). Study 2a and 2b examined whether group members’ evaluations of normative and anti-norm leaders were moderated by the relationship of the ingroup to the authority who appointed the leader. The second phase of the research, comprising three pilot tests and Studies 3, 4 and 5, moved to consider what could help anti-norm leaders gain positive evaluations from members of their group in an organisational context. Drawing on the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003), the traditional leadership literature (Hollander, 1958; Hollander & Julian, 1970), and relevant literature from the social identity approach (Hornsey, 2005; Morton, Postmes, & Jetten, 2007) the second phase aimed to examine whether perceived respect from the leader could help the anti-norm leader to gain more positive evaluations from their group members. Study 3 replicated the design of Studies 2a and 2b in a pseudo-organisational scenario with perceived respect from the leader as an additional measured variable. Study 4 explored the impact of the informal quality of treatment (IQT) received by the ingroup members from the leader on perceptions of the anti-norm leader. In addition, the proposed mediating effect of perceived respect from the leader was examined. Study 5 examined whether respect for the group’s history by the leader would diminish the negative responses of group members to an anti-norm leader. Across the six pilot studies and six main studies, and consistent with the SGD model (Abrams et al., 2005; Abrams et al., 2008), normative leaders were consistently endorsed more, or evaluated more positively, than anti-norm leaders. Across the different testing contexts, incumbent anti-norm leaders were derogated regardless whether they were appointed or elected or whether the outgroup who appointed them had an incompatible or irrelevant relationship with the ingroup. Further, whilst showing high IQT to group members helped anti-norm leaders obtain similar evaluations as to those obtained by low IQT normative leaders, exhibiting high levels of respect for group history failed to help anti-norm leaders mitigate negative evaluations from their group members. These findings suggest that, in line Abrams et al. (2008), once an individual becomes a leader, group members do not take into consideration how that leader came to be or where they came from in evaluations. Instead, group members seem to focus on what the leader does, or can do, for the group. Whilst respect at the group, and particularly at the individual, level can have a limited impact on evaluations, it would seem that little that the leader can do on their own will moderate the negative evaluations of them that stem from the fact that their position fundamentally undermines the validity of prescriptive ingroup norms. As such, and consistent with SGD literature (Abrams et al., 2005; Abrams et al., 2008), the findings of the current program of research demonstrate the overwhelmingly robust motivation of group members to derogate anti-norm leaders who undermine prescriptive ingroup norms. For leaders faced with the challenging task of leading their ingroup towards the prescriptive norms of an outgroup, the findings of the current program of research suggest that, consistent with the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003) bolstering respect for group members through enacting both informal and formal procedures may be somewhat effective. Alternatively, and to carry the black sheep analogy dominant in this line of research further, the anti-norm leader may simply constitute the proverbial ‘sacrificial lamb’ – that is rejected and unpopular among the people he or she is supposed to lead.

Through the lens of the social identity approach (Haslam, 2004; Hogg & Terry, 2001) and in particular, the subjective group dynamics (SGD) model (Abrams, Randsley de Moura, Hutchison, & Viki, 2005) and an organisational justice perspective (Tyler & Blader, 2003), the current program of research set out to explore, in two phases, how anti-norm leaders can mitigate negative responses by their group members when they wish to lead their group towards the prescriptive norms of an outgroup. The first phase of the research, comprising three pilot tests, and Study 1, Study 2a and 2b investigated how anti-norm leaders were judged by ingroup members, and two possible moderators of this effect. Study 1 aimed to replicate the basic findings of Abrams et al. (2008) and explore whether group members’ evaluations of normative and deviant leaders would be moderated by the leaders’ method of gaining leadership (appointed vs. elected). Study 2a and 2b examined whether group members’ evaluations of normative and anti-norm leaders were moderated by the relationship of the ingroup to the authority who appointed the leader. The second phase of the research, comprising three pilot tests and Studies 3, 4 and 5, moved to consider what could help anti-norm leaders gain positive evaluations from members of their group in an organisational context. Drawing on the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003), the traditional leadership literature (Hollander, 1958; Hollander & Julian, 1970), and relevant literature from the social identity approach (Hornsey, 2005; Morton, Postmes, & Jetten, 2007) the second phase aimed to examine whether perceived respect from the leader could help the anti-norm leader to gain more positive evaluations from their group members. Study 3 replicated the design of Studies 2a and 2b in a pseudo-organisational scenario with perceived respect from the leader as an additional measured variable. Study 4 explored the impact of the informal quality of treatment (IQT) received by the ingroup members from the leader on perceptions of the anti-norm leader. In addition, the proposed mediating effect of perceived respect from the leader was examined. Study 5 examined whether respect for the group’s history by the leader would diminish the negative responses of group members to an anti-norm leader. Across the six pilot studies and six main studies, and consistent with the SGD model (Abrams et al., 2005; Abrams et al., 2008), normative leaders were consistently endorsed more, or evaluated more positively, than anti-norm leaders. Across the different testing contexts, incumbent anti-norm leaders were derogated regardless whether they were appointed or elected or whether the outgroup who appointed them had an incompatible or irrelevant relationship with the ingroup. Further, whilst showing high IQT to group members helped anti-norm leaders obtain similar evaluations as to those obtained by low IQT normative leaders, exhibiting high levels of respect for group history failed to help anti-norm leaders mitigate negative evaluations from their group members. These findings suggest that, in line Abrams et al. (2008), once an individual becomes a leader, group members do not take into consideration how that leader came to be or where they came from in evaluations. Instead, group members seem to focus on what the leader does, or can do, for the group. Whilst respect at the group, and particularly at the individual, level can have a limited impact on evaluations, it would seem that little that the leader can do on their own will moderate the negative evaluations of them that stem from the fact that their position fundamentally undermines the validity of prescriptive ingroup norms. As such, and consistent with SGD literature (Abrams et al., 2005; Abrams et al., 2008), the findings of the current program of research demonstrate the overwhelmingly robust motivation of group members to derogate anti-norm leaders who undermine prescriptive ingroup norms. For leaders faced with the challenging task of leading their ingroup towards the prescriptive norms of an outgroup, the findings of the current program of research suggest that, consistent with the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003) bolstering respect for group members through enacting both informal and formal procedures may be somewhat effective. Alternatively, and to carry the black sheep analogy dominant in this line of research further, the anti-norm leader may simply constitute the proverbial ‘sacrificial lamb’ – that is rejected and unpopular among the people he or she is supposed to lead.