Getting it done and getting it right: Leader disciplinary reactions to Followers’ moral transgressions are determined by construal level mindset

Abstract

All normative leadership theories suggest that disciplining followers that transgress moral norms is a crucial leadership task. However, leaders sometimes yet fail to do so. Previous research has indicated that leaders may refrain from enacting discipline out of self-interest or from concern for the organization's interest. We explore another option: leaders may simply be unwilling to enforce moral norms because of a negative attitude towards them. We argue and show that leaders that construe norms on relatively low (i.e. concrete) levels are likely to see norms as annoying obstacles, whereas leaders that construe moral norms on high (i.e. abstract) levels will have a more positive view of norms. In line with this, high construal level leaders are likely to be willing to enforce moral norms through discipline in response to follower moral transgressions.Low construal level leaders, in contrast, actively avoid doing so. We show this effect in different contexts and for different types of leader discipline.

Seeing the Big Picture: A Within-Person Examination of Leader Construal Level and Vision Communication

“…Second, by relying on construal level theory to explore the antecedents of vision communication, we add to the emerging but scarce literature that has started to apply the insights of construal level theory to the study of leadership (Berson et al, 2015;Berson & Halevy, 2014;Popper, 2013;van Houwelingen et al, 2015). In line with these studies, our results echo a similar message that insights from construal level theory can indeed be used to enhance our understanding of leadership phenomena.…”

“…For instance, Popper (2013) used construal level theory to explain how leader perceptions are a function of psychological distance, and Berson et al (2015) proposed that follower motivation is a function of the match between the construal level of leader message attributes and situational attributes. In terms of empirical research, van Houwelingen, van Dijke, and De Cremer (2015) showed that construal level influences leaders’ decision to discipline followers after transgression of moral norms. Demonstrating the importance of a match between the situation and leader communication in terms of construal level, van Houwelingen, Stam, and Giessner (2017) found that leader appeals to desirability (feasibility) were more effective when the spatial distance between leaders and followers was high (low).…”

Construal Level Theory and Moral Judgments: How Thinking Abstractly Modifies Morality

“…Out of these, 13 studies showed empirical evidence that representing objects or events as high-level construals or as psychologically distant is directly associated with stronger moral judgments and increased moral behavior (Agerström & Björklund, 2009a, 2009bAgerström, Björklund, & Carlsson, 2012Choi, Park, & Oh, 2012;Eyal et al, 2008;Napier & Luguri, 2013;Nordhall & Agerström, 2013;Rixom & Mishra, 2014;Tumasjan, Strobel, & Welpe, 2011;van Houwelingen, van Dijke, & de Cremer, 2015;Yi, Charlton, Porter, Carter, & Bickel, 2011). Two studies showed opposing results such that low-level construals and psychological proximity elicited stronger moral judgment and increased moral behavior (Gong & Medin, 2012;Lammers, 2012).…”

“…For instance, some of the methods used to induce different levels of construal have been to manipulate participants' focus on (a) the 'why' versus 'how' of certain events (e.g., Gong & Medin, 2012;Luguri et al, 2012;Napier & Luguri, 2013;Rixom & Mishra, 2014;van Houwelingen et al, 2015), (b) the superordinate versus subordinate features of certain objects (e.g., Gong & Medin, 2012;Luguri et al, 2012;van Houwelingen et al, 2015), or (c) the big picture versus immediate consequences of the moral dilemmas (e.g., Lammers, 2012). Arguably, indications that different kinds of manipulations of construal level lead to the same outcome adds to the construct validity of construal level.…”

Trust maintenance as a function of construal level and attributions: The case of apologies

“…Participants were informed that over the course of the study, they would be working for a small simulated company consisting of one CEO, several middle managers, and a number of low‐level subordinates (adapted from Van Houwelingen, Van Dijke, & De Cremer, ). Each middle manager was responsible for two subordinates and reported to the CEO.…”