2015_tntitlement and the social (de)construction of leader identity.pdf

8/19/2019 2015_Tntitlement and the Social (De)Construction of Leader Identity.pdf

1/20

Falling from a CallingEntitlement and the Social (De)Constructionof Leader Identity

John H. Humphreys and Stephanie S. Pane HadenTexas A&M University–Commerce, USA

John N. DavisHardin-Simmons University, USA

Although research on the concept of calling has proliferated in recent years, scholarsare just beginning to explore potential problematic outcomes associated with calling.Since calling can be an integral part of one’s sense of identity, accepting the call tolead a personally profound mission may also include an unwarranted sense of entitle-ment. Regrettably, the extant research on entitlement is inconsistent and the concepthas been undervalued in leader identity studies. While researching James Meredith’shistoric integration of the University of Mississippi, we discovered his belief that he

had been called to the struggle for equality, eventually internalizing a leader identityconsistent with his calling. Yet, we argue his entitlement beliefs ultimately under-mined his leadership identity and inhibited his ability to effectively pursue that call.Accordingly, we use the case of Meredith to illustrate how over-entitlement couldengender the social deconstruction of the leadership identity of a called leader.

O Calling

O Leader identity

O Entitlement

O Socialconstruction

O Zones ofacceptance

John H. Humphreys (D.B.A., Nova Southeastern University) is Professor of Management atTexas A&M University–Commerce, and Texas A&M University System graduate faculty. Hiswork has appeared in numerous publications including the Harvard Business Review, Human

Relations, Sloan Management Review, Business Horizons, Management Decision, ThunderbirdInternational Business Review, Journal of Management Inquiry, Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Journal of

Management History, and the Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship.

Stephanie S. Pane Haden (PhD, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) is Associate Professor ofManagement at Texas A&M University–Commerce. Her work has appeared in various

publications such as Human Relations, Management Decision, Sloan Management Review , the Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Leadership & Organization Development Journal , the Journal of Business Strategy, Industrial Management, Journal of Management

History , and the Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship.

John N. Davis (PhD, Texas Tech University) is Associate Professor of Management atHardin-Simmons University in Abilene, Texas. He is a Licensed Professional Engineer in

Texas, and is retired from the United States Army. He serves on the Editorial Boards of the Journal of Management Inquiry and the Coastal Business Journal . In addition, he is currently

President-Elect of the Southwest Academy of Management.

u Management Department,Texas A&M University–Commerce,

P.O. Box 3011, Commerce, TX,

75429-3011, US

! [email protected]

u Management Department,Texas A&M University–Commerce,

P.O. Box 3011, Commerce, TX,

75429-3011, US

! [email protected]

u Kelley College of Business,Department of Business, Hardin-

Simmons University, 2200 Hickory

Street, Box 16220, Abilene, Texas

79698-6220, US

! [email protected]

DOI: [10.9774/GLEAF.3709.2015.oc.00003]


2/20

falling from a calli

For much of my life I thought God and I were partners, and I was the senior partner.

I freely admit that I have a colossal ego, and I have been so convinced that I am

literally on a mission from God that I have often acted like a man with a messiah

complex (Meredith & Doyle, 2012: 244).

Introduction

the turgid declaration shown above was made by James Meredith, the firstknown African American student to enroll at the University of Mississippi(Eagles, 2009). In recounting his life story, Meredith repeatedly describes hisstruggle for educational equality (and against White supremacy) as a “mission

from God” (e.g., Meredith & Doyle, 2012: 10) and a “divine responsibility” (e.g.,Meredith, 1966: 214). With the current upsurge of interest on callings (Dik & Duffy, 2012), we argue that an examination of the case of a historic leader whose belief and identity were underpinned by a sense of calling is warranted.

Although research on the concept of being called to some meaningfulundertaking has proliferated in recent years, scholars have largely ignored thepotential failings that could also be associated with a sense of calling (Berke-laar & Buzzanell, 2015). Calls for studies that go beyond only positive framesare beginning to appear in the literature (e.g., Duffy & Dik, 2013). Specifically,Berkelaar and Buzzanell (2015: 16) recently argued for more focus on the

problematic outcomes that might be associated with calling and the potential“shortcomings” associated with called individuals.

In addition, calling can be an integral part of one’s sense of identity (Dobrow,2004), particularly leader identity (Markow & Klenke, 2005), because “leader-ship is perhaps best understood as identity construction” (Karp & Helgo, 2009:892). Yet, while research has shown a connection between calling and identitythe concepts have been related “differently by different theorists, and thereseems to be disagreement on whether calling precedes identity or identity pre-cedes calling” (Markow, 2007: 32).

In any event, accepting the call to lead such a personally profound undertak-ing, and receiving the concomitant status associated with it, carries the risk ofan excessive sense of entitlement (see Naumann, Minsky, & Sturman, 2002).Unfortunately, the extant research on entitlement is also inconsistent, under-valued in leadership inquiries beyond a trait perspective (Tomlinson, 2013), andmissing from leader identity construction studies. Conducting documentaryand archival research of James Meredith’s historic integration of the Universityof Mississippi, we discovered that Meredith believed he had been called to thestruggle for equality, eventually internalizing a leader identity consistent with

his calling. However, we argue his entitlement beliefs ultimately underminedhis leadership identity and inhibited his ability to effectively sustain the pursuitof that call Accordingly we analyzed the case of James Meredith to further


3/20

john h. humphreys, stephanie s. pane haden, john n. davis

Historical Approach

Numerous researchers have endorsed the use of narrative studies to furtherexplore processes of leader/follower exchange (e.g., Novicevic et al ., 2011;

Shamir, 2011) and identity construction (e.g., DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Hum-phreys et al ., in press). Such elucidations from case studies can be particularlyvaluable when attempting to craft conceptual frameworks (de Jong, Higgins, & van Driel, 2015; Ketokivi & Choi, 2014; Morgan, 2012; Pane Haden, Diaz, Hum-phreys, & Hayek, 2013).

Our historical method of researching the calling, beliefs, and outcomesassociated with James Meredith’s leadership involved the process of examiningdocumentary (e.g., books – biographical and autobiographical, newspapers)and archival (e.g., letters, telegrams) data. Examinations of contextualized texts

may allow researchers to uncover discernible undercurrents of leader beliefs(Shamir & Eilam, 2005) and identities (Hassard, 2012) and develop appropri-ate meanings from notable excerpts (Bevir, 2012). Approaching data from a“history to theory” (Kipping & Usdiken, 2014: 572) perspective, we utilizedan analytically structured history process (i.e., using analytical constructs toexplore textual sources). While analytically structured history “retains narrativeas the primary form of explanation, it is driven by concepts …” (Rowlinson, Has-sard, & Decker, 2014: 264). This method is a form of construct-driven narrativeconstruction where the focus is on “interpretation and meaning rather thanthe narrow control of variables …” (Hassard, 2012: 1455). Taking an abductiveapproach to theory development (see Ketokivi & Choi, 2014), we interpreted theunderlying identity and entitlement beliefs of James Meredith using an iterationbetween case data and theory (see Dubois & Gadde, 2002).

We conducted our research by first examining appropriate biographical pas-sages from Eagles’ (2009), The Price of Defiance: James Meredith and the Integra-tion of Ole Miss and Doyle’s (2001), An American Insurrection. We augmentedthese sources with archival data from the James Howard Meredith Collection,which is available at the Department of Archives & Special Collections, J.D.Williams Library, at the University of Mississippi.

We then searched for notable excerpts from Meredith’s (1966) own, ThreeYears in Mississippi and his most recent autobiographical tome, A Mission fromGod: A Memoir and Challenge for America (Meredith & Doyle, 2012). Shamir andEilam (2005) expressly endorsed the autobiographies of leaders as a suitabledata source for narrative case analysis, as the experiences selected by a leaderto communicate their life-story manifest the leader’s identity, their concept ofleadership, and their leadership processes. Therefore, leaders’ life-stories areconsidered valid “depositories of meaning” (Gabrial, 2000: 15) and can be “ana-lyzed to discover those meanings” (Shamir & Eilam, 2005: 413).

We acknowledge that we possessed prior knowledge of Meredith’s integrationof the University of Mississippi to avoid falling into the trap of making “claims ofexisting ignorance” to justify our choice of the case (Siggelkow 2007: 21) This


4/20


insights concerning the role of entitlement in the social construction of theleadership identity of a called leader. According to Siggelkow (2007: 21), it is“useful” and “inevitable” that case observations be guided by such analytical“frames of reference.” In keeping with the case strategy guidance advanced bySiggelkow (2007), we first describe the theoretical foundation for the study andthen use the case as illustration.

Calling

Although research on callings has “tripled in the last five years (Dik & Duffy,2012)” (Berkelaar & Buzzanell, 2015: 2), the concept is still somewhat con-troversial, as no unified conceptual meaning of calling has been achieved byresearchers (Duffy & Dik, 2013). Even so, the idea of calling has a rich historicalfoundation (see Berkelaar & Buzzanell, 2015; Bunderson & Thompson, 2009;Dawson, 2005; Duffy & Dik, 2013; Hall & Chandler, 2005).

For those holding to Christian tradition, evidence of calling goes back thou-sands of years into Jewish history, as recorded in the Old Testament of theBible (Galles & Lenz, 2013). God’s call on Abram (later Abraham) providesthe archetypical example. God called him to leave his home country and hisrelatives and go “unto a land that I will shew thee” (Genesis 12:1, KJV). Thisperspective is “replete with religious, moral, and philosophical undertones …”

(Berkelaar & Buzzanell, 2015: 4), as a calling in this context requires an outsidecaller (higher power) and a greater plan for one’s life in service to others (Hall &Chandler, 2005).

During the Reformation, Martin Luther set forth the idea that one’s life’swork could also be a calling from God (Wren & Bedeian, 2009). Weber (1958)endorsed this viewpoint by considering calling as “a divine inspiration to domorally responsible work” (Hall & Chandler, 2005: 160). Here the conceptmoves beyond a specific task, mission, or obligation to an overarching life pur-pose. Although still recognizing the call as coming from an external source, this

view introduced the potential inclusion of vocation in calling (Dobrow, 2004).The current resurgence of scholarly interest in callings (Duffy & Dik, 2013)

tends to focus more on careers (Novak, 1996) and vocational identity (Galles &Lenz, 2013). This perspective “situates work” as a “meaningful pursuit of anoble, transcendent goal (Duffy & Dik, 2012)” (Berkelaar & Buzzanell, 2015: 2)that could emerge from within to fulfill one’s unique purpose (Dobrow, 2013).Integrating this stance into the calling literature allows for more secular defini-tions of calling (Bellah et al ., 2007; Cafferkey, 2012; Hall & Chandler, 2005).

Whether one maintains a more religious or secular connotation, however,

there does appear to be considerable consistency with regard to the notion thata perceived calling provides a “unifying narrative” (Berkelaar & Buzzanell, 2015:7) to work and/or life (Wrzesniewski 2003) and that the pursuit of that calling


5/20


2007). Assuming this comprehensive approach, Brower (2013) suggested thatthe clearest definition of calling was most likely Hall and Chandler’s (2005:160) characterization of an undertaking that an individual perceives as their“purpose in life.” Dik and Duffy (2013) added that this perceived life purposeis constructed through an ongoing process that could change over time. Asthese broad perceptions of calling inform how individuals define themselves(Dik & Duffy, 2009), from a social identity construction perspective (van Knip-penberg & Hogg, 2003), leadership identity must be informed as well (Markow,2007).

The Social Construction of Leader Identity

From a social construction standpoint, leadership is open to interpretationby all actors in any given leader/follower situation (DeRue & Ashford, 2010;Fairhurst, 2009; Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014). Social construc-tionist views of leadership are centered on follower perceptions of leaders andthe process of leadership itself (Fairhurst & Grant, 2010). As a result, the con-structed persona of a given leader is considered of greater significance than aresingular traits or hierarchical authority (DeRue, Ashford, & Cotton, 2009), asa leader’s legitimacy (Luhrmann & Eberl, 2007) and credibility (Karp & Helgo,2009) are conferred by followers’ construction of the leader’s social identity

(Grint, 2005).DeRue and Ashford (2010) purport that a leadership identity is embedded

within a context of social interaction and consists of the related facets of indi-vidual internalization, relational recognition, and collective endorsement. Thissocial embeddedness implies that leader identity construction is a relationalprocess (Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012) and that the roles of leader and followermust be “reciprocally related” (DeRue & Ashford, 2010: 629).

Leadership identity is initiated and advanced through social interface, asleaders and followers co-construct their identities by participating in a claiming

and granting identity formation process (see DeRue & Ashford, 2010). Overtime, leaders and followers internalize the identities that emerge from theclaiming-granting process and the identities become acknowledged throughrole acceptance and endorsed within the social context (DeRue & Ashford,2010). Therefore, the internalization of leader identity is reinforced or dimin-ished by the gradation of relational recognition and endorsement by followers.

This suggests that a follower’s implicit theory of leadership would be animportant factor within the process of constructing leader identity (DeRue,Ashford, & Cotton, 2009; Humphreys et al ., 2015). Prior research has indicated

that followers attribute leadership to others based upon perceived congruencewith their own implicit theory of leadership (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Lord,1985) their expectations (Kenney Blascovich & Shaver 1994) and the cognitive


6/20


(Epitropaki et al ., 2013; Lord, Brown, Harvey, & Hall, 2001; Sternberg, 1985).One important construct that could negatively influence a follower’s norma-tive evaluation of leader appeal is the perception of excessive entitlement (Fisk, 2010; Naumann, Minsky, & Sturman, 2002; Tomlinson, 2013).

Entitlement

A review of the many disciplinary literatures related to entitlement reveals “acommon defining element of entitlement as what individuals perceive theydeserve” (Tomlinson, 2013: 68). Although entitlement is often cited as a mana-gerial challenge (Fisk, 2010), extant research on the topic is inconsistent andoften focused on the sense of entitlement possessed by followers.

In an attempt to develop the construct of entitlement for use in managementstudies, Naumann, Minsky, and Sturman (2002) integrated the delineations ofentitlement that appeared in the domains of law, philosophy, political science,marketing, and anthropology. Curiously, their effort excluded the entitlementwork emerging from the fields of personality and social psychology (Tomlin-son, 2013). Evolving from the literature related to narcissism, “personalitypsychologists view entitlement as a stable individual difference that – acrosssituations – exerts a global impact on one’s thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors”(Tomlinson, 2013: 69). Social psychologists, however, are more concerned with

how individuals evaluate others, which has led to the differentiation of entitle-ment and deservingness (Feather, 2003), “such that entitlement has to do withsome ascribed status or quality of a person or some social contract or norms,while deservingness is based on what has been earned” (Tomlinson, 2013: 69).

As a result, Tomlinson (2013) conceptualized entitlement as both a personal-ity trait (Fisk, 2010) and a psychologically and socially-governed belief (Feather,2003). We argue that this integrated framework offers key insights that couldbe crucial in understanding the role of entitlement in the social constructionof leader identity. According to Tomlinson (2013: 71):

First, entitlement is most appropriately understood as referring to outcomes associ-

ated with the quality or status of a person and/or prescribed via an external frame of

reference … Accordingly, entitlement beliefs are … an actor’s beliefs regarding his/

her rightful claim of privileges. Second, these beliefs may or may not correspond

to what … observers deem to be the actor’s rightful claim.

This representation suggests that entitlement beliefs should be conceptualizedalong a continuum (Tomlinson, 2013), as followers judge the degree to which aleader’s entitlement claims are legitimate or excessive (Fisk, 2010). Thus, whenfollowers perceive that a leader’s claims exceed what they (followers) deem as

appropriate (i.e., over-entitlement - see Heath, Knez, & Camerer, 1993), sub-sequent leadership actions and claims may be interpreted as “inappropriate,


7/20


Summary of the Analytical Constructs

The very notion that a called individual believes he or she has been “set apart ormarked” (Markow & Klenke, 2005: 13) for some specific (and significant) pur-

pose could raise issues of entitlement, as entitlement beliefs often accompanyclaims of uniqueness (Brown, 1997). Add in the specter of leadership statusand identity with a perceived calling and one’s sense of entitlement is likelyto be further amplified (see DeCremer, van Dijk, & Folmer, 2009), potentiallyundermining and weakening the leadership identity of a called leader to suchan extent that the effective enactment of the calling becomes unviable. Weargue that an analysis of the case of James Meredith provides an exceptionalopportunity to explore the relationships between these interrelated constructs.

The Case of James Howard Meredith

James Meredith was born in 1933 near Kosciusko, Mississippi (for an expandedreview of the Meredith biographies, see Humphreys et al ., 2015; Smothers et al .,2014). He is widely acclaimed for being the first known African American stu-dent to be enrolled at the University of Mississippi (Eagles, 2009). Althoughhis desire to attend the university was not specifically race-related at its origin

(Humphreys et al ., 2015), he firmly believed that he had a “divine responsibility”(Meredith, 1966: 21) to integrate the school, as he was on a “mission from God”(Meredith & Doyle, 2012: 37) to gain “victory over discrimination, oppression,the unequal application of the law, and most of all, over ‘White Supremacy’ andall of its manifestations” (Meredith, 1966: 20-21). His calling appears to havebeen recognized by others too, as letters supporting Meredith’s mission affirm,“You must have been selected by God” (9/28/62: 95.25.3.3) as a “chosen instru-ment” (9/30/62: 97.25.3.2). He was even characterized as “the Moses” of hispeople (10/01/62: 95.72.3.4).

After President John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address in 1961, Meredithdecided it was the right time to seek admission to the university (Eagles, 2009).Although the Supreme Court had ruled that Meredith was legally entitled toattend the state school, the governor of Mississippi (Ross Barnett) attempted toblock his enrollment (Doyle, 2001). The result was a prolonged legal battle thatultimately saw Meredith enrolled in 1962 (Eagles, 2009). The ensuing riot isremembered as one of the worst conflicts of the civil rights era, as several USmarshals were wounded and two civilians were killed during the mêlée (Doyle,2001). Today, Meredith’s historic entry into the University of Mississippi isconsidered a decisive juncture in the US civil rights movement (Eagles, 2009).

Meredith, however, asserts that he “was never a part of the civil rights move-ment” (Meredith & Doyle, 2012: 18). “When examined in detail, he emerges


8/20


(Eagles, 2009: 4). While he clearly felt called to change the status of AfricanAmericans through educational equality and the dismantling of the system ofWhite supremacy, he did not initially view himself as a leader (Meredith, 1966).

By the spring of 1963, however, he began communicating “more frequently,confidently, and comfortably about his experiences and beliefs” (Eagles, 2009:412) and was more amenable to assuming a leadership role (Meredith, 1966).Holding no hierarchical position, though, his legitimacy as a leader was con-tingent on others who supported his conveyed calling. Their support is sub-stantiated by many letters in the Meredith archives containing responses suchas, “Our thanks to you for taking such a decisive lead in what is all America’sstruggle for equality” (10/01/62: 97.25.3.5). Grounded in the identity proposalsof DeRue and Ashford (2010), Humphreys et al . (2015) argue that this collec-tive endorsement from the social context initiated the social construction of hisleadership identity. According to Humphreys et al . (2015), as Meredith explored

the identity of leader, others recognized his role and responded with followeridentities, further encouraging him to internalize the leadership identity. Whenthat identity was effectively internalized, Meredith’s leader identity had beensocially constructed.

However, as conceptualized by DeRue and Ashford (2010), socially con-structed leader identities are malleable. Following Meredith’s graduation fromthe University of Mississippi, he frequently felt entitled to espouse controversialpositions in various domains in order to attract public attention (Eagles, 2009).Such self-aggrandizement (Brown, 1997) and attention-seeking (Kets de Vries &

Miller, 1985) actions are often seen in narcissistic individuals (Davis, Wester, &King, 2008) and those with excessive entitlement beliefs (Tomlinson, 2013).Consequently, his subsequent claims of leadership were often disregarded byothers, thereby weakening and destabilizing his leader identity (Humphreyset al ., 2015) and hindering his capacity to effectively maintain the pursuit of hiscalling. We argue that our analysis of this unique case allows us to model therelationships and processes associated with leader calling, leader identity, andleader entitlement beliefs.

A Framework of Entitlement Engendering the Social (De)Construction of the Leadership Identity of a Called Leader

Siggelkow (2007) suggested that in-depth case studies are particularly advanta-geous when attempting to conceptualize complex and related analytical con-structs. Consistent with this perspective, Shamir (2011) called for leadershipresearchers to make greater use of historical case studies to depict leadership

processes across time. Accordingly, we interpret the beliefs and leader identityprocesses emerging from the case of James Meredith to advance a conceptualmodel that illuminates the role of entitlement in the construction or decon


9/20


Figure 1: A Conceptual Model of Entitlement Engendering the Social (De)Construction of the Leadership Identity of a Called Leader

InternalizedLeader Identity

Potential FollowerRecognition and

Endorsement

Calling to Lead

(Belief)

EntitlementBeliefs

Zone of

Acceptance

Trait Entitlement

Legitimate

Over-Entitlement

LeadershipClaims

Grant Claims andStrengthen Leader Identity

Refuse Claims andWeaken Leader Identity

First, Meredith unambiguously portrays his “sense of … mission from God”(Meredith & Doyle, 2012: 241) as a calling. Even in childhood, his fatherinformed him that, “It is your duty and responsibility to lead our people to theirproper place in the world” (Meredith & Doyle, 2012: 33) and James understoodthis was to be his “destiny” (Meredith & Doyle, 2012: 37). According to Meredith(Meredith & Doyle, 2012: 9):

There was never a time I didn’t feel divinely inspired. All of my life I studied for the

role. I feel like God or some force greater than me provided the mission but left it

to me to decide how to carry it out. … I felt immortal. … I was inspired by a divine

responsibility I have felt my entire life ...

Considering the various enumerated characteristics of calling in the litera-ture (e.g., Duffy & Dik, 2013; Novak, 1996; Weiss, Skelley, Hall, & Haughey,2004), the essential belief that a calling effects society in some meaningful way(Bellah et al ., 2007), and the overarching definition of calling as one’s “purpose

in life” (Hall & Chandler, 2005: 160), Meredith consistently and unmistakablydescribes an intensely felt sense of calling.Moreover, although scholars have debated whether calling precedes identity,

or vice versa (Markow, 2007), we can say with confidence that in the case ofJames Meredith his calling was recognized (see Novak, 1996) long before hisleader identity was effectually internalized. Whereas Meredith proclaims hiscalling as something he felt even as a child (Meredith, 1966), Humphreyset al . (2015) offered compelling evidence that his leader identity constructionprocess did not commence prior to his historic integration of the University ofMississippi.

As these authors described, Meredith held no positional power and did notview himself as a leader when he began the process of admittance (Meredith,


10/20


to assume the role of being a leader” (Meredith & Doyle, 2012: 20). However,with his bid to enter the university many African Americans (e.g., 1/13/62:97.25.3.1), and some white individuals (e.g., 10/04/62: 97.25.3.10), took noticeand endorsed him as a “leader” (e.g., 9/30/62: 97.25.3.2) in the dynamic socialcontext.

Humphreys et al . (2015) argue that with the recognition of Meredith’s defi-ance, the social group began to view Meredith as a leader and collectivelyendorsed him as such, thereby enhancing his “leadership self-efficacy” (Mccor-mick & Martinko, 2004: 6) and initiating his leadership identity constructionprocess. As Meredith explored this identity, others relationally recognizedhis emerging leadership role and reciprocated with follower identities, whichemboldened him to actively internalize the identity of leader (DeRue & Ash-ford, 2010). As a result, his identity having been initiated by the collectiveendorsement of the social context, relationally recognized and internalized,

Meredith’s leadership identity became socially constructed and congruent withhis perceived calling.

From this socially constructed leader identity perspective, James Meredithwas in a potent position to have future leadership claims readily granted by fol-lowers (see DeRue & Ashford, 2010). Yet, this was not ultimately the case, ashe repeatedly adopted controversial positions in order to attract public attention(Eagles, 2009) and because he thought his status entitled him to be authorita-tively received in any milieu (see Meredith & Doyle, 2012). Meredith “baffledmany observers” (Eagles, 2009: 434) by actions that appeared inconsistent

with his calling such as joining the staff of the conservative senator from NorthCarolina, Jesse Helms, endorsing Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke for Governorof Louisiana, and even supporting Ross Barnett, the Mississippi governor whohad so vociferously opposed his integration, for a subsequent term in office(Meredith & Doyle, 2012). Meredith himself acknowledged that (Meredith &Doyle, 2012: 225):

In 1966, I was the most admired black man in America after Dr. King, a man

who triggered global headlines. In the years that followed, I fell into obscurity,

periodically reappearing in often perplexing ways, having many adventures and

misadventures along the way.

Thus, the Meredith case supports the proposition that leader and followeridentities (DeRue & Ashford, 2010) and callings (Dik & Duffy, 2009) canchange over time. Meredith’s subsequent claims of leadership were oftenrejected by others who were no longer willing to grant him the role of leaderand reciprocate with follower identities (Humphreys et al ., 2015). This lackof affirmation led to a “negative spiral” (DeRue & Ashford, 2010: 633) wheresupport for his claims essentially faded away. We argue that James Meredith’sentitlement beliefs played a significant role in this destructive leader identity

construction process.In our conceptualization, we ground our entitlement constructs in the inte-


11/20


71) proposed that entitlement beliefs are constructed through a combination of“trait” (i.e., rigid individual difference) and “state” (i.e., malleable and depend-ent upon social norms) influences.

From a trait perspective, Meredith unabashedly acknowledges his narcis-sistic personality. He often refers to his “colossal ego” and “Messiah complex”(Meredith & Doyle, 2012: 9). He admitted that, “My ego is so enormous, andI talk about myself so much, that someone once wisecracked that my nameshould be changed to ‘I, James Meredith’” (Meredith & Doyle, 2012: 22).Meredith acknowledges that during pivotal periods of his struggle he was “busyreading newspaper clippings” about himself (Meredith & Doyle, 2012: 10). Suchnarcissistic personalities often display “extreme self-absorption, a tendencytoward exhibitionism, claims to uniqueness and a sense of invulnerability”(Brown, 1997: 646), all of which are visibly exhibited within the Meredith case.Because trait entitlement could potentially serve as a latent antecedent to leader

identity and even one’s sense of calling (see Grijalva et al ., 2015), we includethese conceivable relationships in our representation.

However, we submit that of greater importance is the role of trait entitle-ment in informing one’s entitlement beliefs. Tomlinson (2013: 72) arguedthat entitlement beliefs should be “conceptualized as a matter of degree.” Heenvisioned a continuum ranging from legitimate entitlement beliefs to whathe termed “over-entitlement” (Tomlinson, 2013: 72) and suggested that anindividual’s trait entitlement was an antecedent of their entitlement beliefs,“such that over-entitlement beliefs are especially likely for individuals high in

trait entitlement” (Tomlinson, 2013: 73). Trait entitlement, though, is only oneantecedent, as other factors may also influence beliefs about one’s expectedprivileges.

We argue that Meredith’s entitlement beliefs, driven by a significant degreeof trait entitlement, were further magnified by his sense of calling and leader-ship identity in the unjust social context. Meredith passionately believes hewas called to his purpose. Such a sense of calling elevates the meaning of one’smission and, as a result, also exalts the status of the called individual (Heath,Knez, & Camerer, 1993). This perception of heightened status can engenderover-entitlement beliefs (Tomlinson, 2013). We argue even more so given theinequalities and indignities symptomatic of the time of Meredith’s integra-tion efforts. Recent research has indicated that “when individuals feel treatedunfairly, this may heighten their sense of entitlement (Zitek et al ., 2010)”( Tomlinson, 2013: 74).

Furthermore, if one’s calling is to lead (Evans, 1991), over-entitlement ismuch more likely (DeCremer, 2003), as once individuals are granted the roleand identity of leader, “their expectations of due privileges increase accord-ingly” (Tomlinson, 2013: 75). Indeed, DeCremer, van Dijk, and Folmer (2009:109) suggest that, “merely referring to an individual as a ‘leader’ may be

enough” to induce over-entitlement beliefs in that leader. Tomlinson (2013)suggests this is the case because individual’s have cognitive schemas of what


12/20


the more central consideration would be the cognitive schemas of followersand their evaluation of a leader’s entitlement beliefs based upon their implicittheories of leadership.

Prior research has indicated that individuals attribute leadership to othersbased in part on their cognitive construction of leader attributes (Sternberg,1985), behaviors (Kenney, Blascovich, & Shaver, 1994), and expectations (Calder,1977). Followers’ discernment of leader over-entitlement could impact theirassessment and attribution (Fisk, 2010; Tomlinson, 2013). Although Hum-phreys et al . (2015) point to the changing social context as a primary driver inMeredith’s post-integration leadership claims often being rejected, we arguethat followers’ perception of Meredith’s over-entitlement beliefs also played asignificant role and may explain the divergent function of entitlement beliefsin leader identity construction or deconstruction.

DeRue and Ashford (2010: 641) offered that leader and follower “claims or

grants of a particular identity may be acceptable within a specific context or inregard to specific issues, but in other contexts or regarding different issues,those same claims or grants may be outside the zone of acceptance and, thus,be met with resistance.” We incorporate DeRue and Ashford’s (2010) idea of azone of acceptance but specifically extend their conceptualization to the role ofentitlement beliefs as an important trigger of subsequent claiming and grant-ing actions.

We argue that when a leader’s entitlement beliefs are deemed legitimateby followers, leadership claims will be considered within the zone of accept-

ance. Since legitimate attributes and claims match follower expectations of aneffective and desirable leader, followers are likely to grant those claims (Calder,1977). The resulting relational recognition and endorsement would bolsterthe internalized leader identity of the leader (DeRue & Ashford, 2010), furtherenhancing the leader’s ability to pursue a perceived calling (Markow, 2007).

However, as a leader’s entitlement beliefs move down the entitlement con-tinuum, there comes a point where a leader’s entitlement beliefs are judgedby followers to be excessive (Fisk, 2010) and redolent of over-entitlement(Tomlinson, 2013). Over-entitlement by definition indicates that followersdeem a leader’s claims are unwarranted and inappropriate (Heath, Knez, &Camerer, 1993). This assessment suggests that claims made from a positionof over-entitlement will be considered outside of the zone of acceptance. Asa result, ensuing leadership claims will largely be disaffirmed (Tomlinson,2013) and relational recognition and endorsement withheld. The lack of affir-mation could lead to a negative spiral that weakens the leadership identityof the leader, thereby hindering the ability of a called leader to pursue theircalling.

We argue that the case of James Meredith illustrates this proposition. As fol-lowers in the social context discerned his over-entitlement beliefs, his ensuing

claims of leadership were deemed outside their zone of acceptance (DeRue &Ashford, 2010). As a result, his claims were rebuffed as followers were less


13/20


and endorsement weakened Meredith’s leadership identity so that his claim-ing, and others granting behavior, largely faded away (Humphreys et al ., 2015),inhibiting his capacity to advance his calling, and transforming him (internal-ized identity) into a self-described “American Don Quixote” (Meredith & Doyle,2012: 232).

Contributions, Limitations, and Future Research

“Because calling is often framed positively, use of the term can preventmeaningful discussion about its shortcomings for particular individuals,groups, or society as a whole (Lips-Wiersma et al ., 2009)” (Berkelaar & Buz-zanell, 2015: 16). As a result, scholars are beginning to address what has beentermed the “dark side” of calling (Duffy & Dik, 2013: 432). We do not see ourcontribution as falling into the dark side, however, as our research is specifi-cally focused on a process by which the successful pursuit of an individual’scall could be disrupted. Instead, we approach the body of research that isfocused on interpersonal deficiencies (Grijalva et al ., 2015) as a predictor ofleader dysfunction. Therefore, our primary contribution lies in conceptuallyillustrating (see Siggelkow, 2007) how over-entitlement could interrupt thepursuit of one’s calling by engendering the social deconstruction of leader-ship identity.

Moreover, our case analysis makes an explicit contribution to the leadershipdomain because it is not focused on typical manager/subordinate relationships(Uhl-Bien et al ., 2014). Bedeian and Hunt (2006: 199) argued that, “To trulystudy leadership … requires the identification of individuals who have differ-entiated themselves … in terms of their influence (beyond that associated withtheir formal position power or authority), not simply the study of individualswhose names appear in a box with a title on an organization chart.” We arguethat Meredith’s case provides a creditable opportunity to purposely analyze theconstruction of leadership identity in a called leader.

We also contend that our conceptualization provides further evidence thatthe current “historic turn” (Kipping & Usdiken, 2014: 535) in organizationalresearch can provide fruitful avenues to the extension of theory (Rowlinson,Hassard, & Decker, 2014). When theory is at a nascent point, interpretive studiesof historical cases can provide more compelling insights than empirical studiescan offer (Siggelkow, 2007) and often serve as constructive intermediaries thatsupport subsequent empirical research (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Thus,we intend that a contribution of our research is the promotion of historicalapproaches to theory development.

We do recognize that historical case-based research places greater emphasison reflexivity than replication logic and that scholars working from a positivisttradition might consider such “polymorphic” (Alvesson & Gabriel 2013: 245)


14/20


methods a limitation (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). However, arguing from anon-positivist perspective, Dubois and Gadde (2014) contend that a prematurefocus on generalization could impede the constructive derivation of insightsfrom cases. Such conflicting views suggest that the limitations of our studywill largely be a reflection of the epistemological and ontological constructionof readers (see Parry et al ., 2014). In any event, we ask readers to evaluate ourconceptualization based upon the plausibility (Weick, 1989), reasonableness(Goodman & Pryluck, 1974), and persuasiveness (Siggelkow, 2007) of our argu-ments. Testing of the proposed relationships within our case conceptualizationshould commence as a basis for future research.

In addition, we think this case may provide further explanation as to whyindividuals with narcissistic leanings often emerge as leaders (Judge, LePine, &Rich, 2006) but are judged as ineffective over time (see Nevicka et al ., 2011).Future research should move beyond only trait entitlement and examine the

destructive role of entitlement beliefs in studies of “narcissistic leadership”(Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006: 617), particularly within the research streamdifferentiating agentic and communal narcissism (see Luo, Cai, Sedikides, & Song, 2014).

Also, while we introduced entitlement beliefs and implicit leadership theo-ries as constructs in this study, future research should examine the relationshipbetween entitlement beliefs and implicit follower theories (IFT, see Sy, 2010), asthe IFTs of leaders can affect how they interact with followers (Avolio, Walum-bwa, & Weber, 2009). It is conceivable that leaders with an undue sense of

entitlement may be predisposed (Lord & Maher, 1993) towards more negativeIFTs that could inhibit relational recognition and spawn adverse perceptionsof leader legitimacy (Luhrmann & Eberl, 2007) and credibility (Karp & Helgo,2009), which in turn could reduce the effective dimensions of the zone ofacceptance constructed by followers.

Conclusion

Even though research on callings has proliferated recently, scholars are justbeginning to consider negative elements and problematic outcomes that couldbe associated with calling. Because a sense of calling can be central to one’ssense of identity, accepting the call to lead such a transcendent pursuit mayprompt a corresponding sense of entitlement. Yet, we know little about therole of entitlement beliefs in informing leadership identity in called leaders.Accordingly, we analyzed the historic case of James Meredith’s integration (andpost-integration) to illustrate how over-entitlement could engender the social

deconstruction of the leadership identity of a called leader, thereby making thepursuit unsustainable.


15/20


References

Alvesson, M., & Gabriel, Y. (2013). Beyond formulaic research: In praise of greater diversity

in organizational research and publications. Academy of Management Learning & Educa-

tion, 12(2): 245-263.Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O., & Weber, T.J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research,

and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology , 60: 421-449.

Bedeian, A.G., & Hunt, J.G. (2006). Academic amnesia and vestigial assumptions of our

forefathers. Leadership Quarterly , 17(2): 190-205.

Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. (2007). Habits of the Heart: Indi-

vidualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Berkelaar, B.L., & Buzzanell, P.M. (2015). Bait and switch or double-edged sword? The (some-

times) failed promises of calling. Human Relations, 68(1): 157-178.

Bevir, M. (2012). In defense of historicism. Journal of the Philosophy of History , 6(1): 111-114.

Brower, H.H. (2013). From the editors: Professor as a calling. Academy of Management Learn-

ing & Education, 12(4): 537-539.Brown, A.D. (1997). Narcissism, identity, and legitimacy. Academy of Management Review ,

22(3): 643-686.

Bunderson, J.S., & Thompson, J.A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and

the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly ,

54(1): 32-57.

Cafferky, M.E. (2012). Management: A Faith-based Perspective. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Calder, B.J. (1977). An attribution theory of leadership. In B. Staw & G. Salancik (Eds.), New

Directions in Organizational Behavior : 179-204. Chicago, IL: St. Clair Press.

Davis, M.S., Wester, K.L., & King, B. (2008). Narcissism, entitlement, and questionable

research practices in counseling: A pilot study. Journal of Counseling and Development ,86(2): 200-210.

Dawson, J. (2005). A history of vocation: Tracing a keyword of work, meaning, and moral

purpose. Adult Education Quarterly , 55(3): 220-231.

DeCremer, D. (2003). How self-conception may lead to inequality: Effects of hierarchical

roles on the equality-rule in organizational resource-sharing tasks. Group & Organization

Management , 28(2): 282-302.

DeCremer, D., van Dijk, E., & Folmer, C.P.R. (2009). Why leaders feel entitled to take more:

Feelings of entitlement as a moral rationalization strategy. In D. DeCremer (Ed.), Psycho-

logical Perspectives on Ethical Behavior and Decision Making : 107-119. USA: Information

Age Publishing.

de Jong, A., Higgins, D.M., & van Driel, H. (2015). Towards a new business history? BusinessHistory , 57(1): 5-29.

DeRue, D.S., & Ashford, S.J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of

leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review , 35(4):

627-647.

DeRue, D.S., Ashford, S.J., & Cotton, N.C. (2009). Assuming the mantle: Unpacking the

process by which individuals internalize a leader identity. In L.M. Roberts & J.E. Dutton

(Eds.), Exploring Positive Identities and Organizations: Building a Theoretical and Research

Foundation: 213-232. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Dik, B.J., & Duffy, R.D. (2009). Calling and vocation at work. The Counseling Psychologist ,

37(3): 424-450.

Dik, B.J., & Duffy, R.D. (2012). Make Your Job a Calling: How the Psychology of Vocation Can

Change Your Life at Work. West Conshoken, PA: Templeton Press.


16/20


17/20


Heath, C., Knez, M., & Camerer, C. (1993). The strategic management of the entitlement

process in the employment relationship. Strategic Management Journal , 14: 75-93.

Humphreys, J.H., Novicevic, M.M., Smothers, J., Pane Haden S., Hayek, M., Williams, A.,

Oyler, J., & Clayton, R. (2015). The collective endorsement of James Meredith: Initiating

a leader identity construction process. Human Relations, 68(9): 1389-1413.

Judge, T.A., LePine, J.A., & Rich, B.L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship ofthe narcissistic personality to self-and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leader-

ship, and task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91(4): 762-776.

Karp, T., & Helgo, T.I.T. (2009). Leadership as identity construction: The act of leading people

in organizations. Journal of Management Development , 28(10): 880-896.

Kenney, R.A., Blascovich, J., & Shaver, P.R. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Prototypes

for new leaders. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 15(4): 409-437.

Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T. (2014). Renaissance of case research as a scientific method. Journal

of Operations Management , 32(5): 232-240.

Kets de Vries, M.F.R., & Miller, D. (1985). Narcissism and leadership: An object relations

perspective. Human Relations, 38(6): 583-601.

Kipping, M., & Usdiken, B. (2014). History in organization and management theory: Morethan meets the eye. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1): 535-588.

Lips-Wiersma, M., Lund Dean, K., & Fornaciari, C.J. (2009). Theorizing the dark side of the

workplace spirituality movement. Journal of Management Inquiry , 18(4): 288-300.

Lord, R.G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership and

behavioral measurement in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior , 7: 87-128.

Lord, R.G, Brown, D.J., Harvey, J.L., & Hall, R.J. (2001). Contextual constraints on prototype

generation and their multilevel consequences for leadership perceptions. Leadership

Quarterly , 12(3): 311-338.

Lord, R.G., & Hall, R.J. (2005). Identity, deep structure, and the development of leadership

skill. Leadership Quarterly , 16(4): 591-615.Lord, R.G., & Maher, K.J. (1993). Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions

and Performance. New York, NY: Routledge.

Luhrmann, T., & Eberl, P. (2007). Leadership and identity construction: Reframing the

leader-follower interaction from an identity theory perspective. Leadership, 3(1): 115-127.

Luo, Y.L.L., Cai, H., Sedikides, C., & Song, H. (2014). Distinguishing communal narcissism

from agentic narcissism: A behavior genetics analysis on the agency-communion model

of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality , 49: 52-58.

Markow, F.A. (2007). Calling and leader identity: Utilizing narrative analysis to construct a

stage model of calling development. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest,

UMI Dissertations Publishing: 3281261.

Markow, F., & Klenke, K. (2005). The effects of personal meaning and calling on organi-zational commitment: An empirical investigation of spiritual leadership. International

Journal of Organizational Analysis, 13(1): 8-27.

Mccormick, M.J., & Martinko, M.J. (2004). Identifying leader social cognitions: Integrat-

ing the causal reasoning perspective into social cognitive theory. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 10(4): 2-11.

Meredith, J. (1966). Three years in Mississippi. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Meredith, J., & Doyle, W. (2012). A Mission from God: A Memoir and Challenge for America.

New York, NY: Atria Books.

Morgan, M.S. (2012). Case studies: One observation or many? Justification or discovery?

Philosophy of Science, 79(5): 667-677.


18/20


Nevicka, B., De Hoogh, A.H.B., Van Vianen, A.E.M., Beersma, B., & McIlwain, D. (2011).

All I need is a stage to shine: Narcissists leader emergence and performance. Leadership

Quarterly , 22(5): 910-925.

Novak, M. (1996). Business as a Calling: Work and the Examined Life. New York, NY: The Free

Press.

Naumann, S.E., Minsky, B.D., & Sturman, M.C. (2002). Historical examination of employeeentitlement. Journal of Management History , 40(1): 89-94.

Novicevic, M.M., Humphreys, J.H., Buckley, M.R., Cagle, C., & Roberts, F. (2011). Effective

leadership in unexpected places: A sociohistorical analysis of the Red Tops dance orches-

tra. Business Horizons, 54(6): 529-540.

Pane Haden, S.S., Diaz, S., Humphreys, J.H., & Hayek, M. (2013). Leading aesthetically:

Insights from the founders of the San Antonio Conservation Society. Journal of Applied

Management and Entrepreneurship, 19: 3-26.

Parry, K., Mumford, M.D., Bower, I., & Watts, L.L. (2014). Qualitative and historiometric

methods in leadership research: A review of the first 25 years of The Leadership Quarterly .

Leadership Quarterly , 25(1): 132-151.

Rosenthal, S.A., & Pittinsky, T.L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. Leadership Quarterly , 17(6):617-633.

Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J., & Decker, S. (2014). Research strategies for organizational his-

tory: A dialogue between historical theory and organization theory. Academy of Manage-

ment Review , 39(3): 250-274.

Shamir, B. (2011). Leadership takes time: Some implications of (not) taking time seriously

in leadership research. Leadership Quarterly , 22(2): 307-315.

Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). “What’s your story? A life-stories approach to authentic

leadership development. Leadership Quarterly , 16(3): 395-418.

Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal , 50(1):

20-24.Smothers. J., Novicevic, M.M., Murphy, P.J., & Humphreys, J.H. (2014). Institutional entre-

preneurship as emancipating institutional work. Journal of Management History , 20(1):

114-134.

Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology , 49(3):607-627.

Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and conse-

quences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 113(2): 73-84.

Tomlinson, E.C. (2013). An integrative model of entitlement beliefs. Employee Responsibility

Rights Journal , 25(2): 67-87.

Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R.E., Lowe, K.B., & Carsten, M.K. (2014). Followership theory: A reviewand research agenda. Leadership Quarterly , 25(1): 83-104.

van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M.A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effective-

ness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior , 25: 245-297.

Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York, NY: Charles

Scribner’s Sons.

Weick, K.E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management

Review , 14(4): 516-531.

Weiss, J.W., Skelley, M.F., Haughey, J.C., & Hall, D.T. (2004). Calling, new careers and spir-

ituality: A reflexive perspective for organizational leaders and professionals. Research in

Ethical Issues in Organizations, 5: 175-201.


19/20


Wren, D.A., & Bedeian, A.G. (2009). The Evolution of Management Thought (6th ed.). Hobo-

ken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Wrzesniewski, A. (2003). Finding positive meaning in work. In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, &

R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline:

296-308. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Zitek, E.M., Jordan, A.H., Monin, B., & Leach, F.R. (2010). Victim entitlement to behaveselfishly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 98(2): 245-255.

q


20/20

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without

permission.

2015_tntitlement and the social (de)construction of leader identity.pdf

Documents