The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Why efficient leaders risk appearing as jerks: people expect authority figures to accept organizational sacrificial harm, but view doing so as cold and immoral

Why efficient leaders risk appearing as jerks: people expect authority figures to accept organizational sacrificial harm, but view doing so as cold and immoral
Why efficient leaders risk appearing as jerks: people expect authority figures to accept organizational sacrificial harm, but view doing so as cold and immoral

Organizations sometimes face choices where harming some employees brings overall benefits, e.g., downsizing under crisis. Similar to sacrificial dilemmas where causing harm saves lives, organizational sacrifices may communicate an affective-cognitive trade-off: sacrificing employees to maximize outcomes suggests a relatively cold but competent demeanor, whereas refusal to sacrifice may communicate warmth despite lower competence. Accordingly, people may expect leaders to sacrifice and conform to such role norms themselves. Finally, decision-makers may be able to influence such perceptions through verbal communication. Six preregistered studies (N = 2231) tested these possibilities. Consistent with prior work, people rated decision-makers who rejected sacrificial harm higher in warmth than competence, whereas managers who accepted sacrificial harm lower in warmth than competence. People also expected more sacrificial decisions from high- than low-authority decision-makers, even though they evaluated them similarly when making the same choice. Participants assigned to high versus low authority roles also accepted sacrifices more often, although this effect emerged only in less-experienced workers. Finally, expressing emotional concern for sacrificial victims increased ratings of warmth and moral character, and ratings of warmth and leadership when accepting harm. These findings suggest a paradox leaders may overcome with communication: People may expect sacrificial choices from leadership, even as they infer coldness and immorality (albeit competence) from such decisions—however, clarifying concern for victims may reduce approbation.

decision-making, executive stress, leadership, moral dilemmas, social perceptions
0021-9029
940-960
Brandt, Elena
c9803c5c-6210-4117-b8e0-8b360ceb5e92
Lam, Jason
2452121a-ca5d-4b3a-8f50-f7523be61c43
Conway, Paul
765aaaf9-173f-44cf-be9a-c8ffbb51e286
Brandt, Elena
c9803c5c-6210-4117-b8e0-8b360ceb5e92
Lam, Jason
2452121a-ca5d-4b3a-8f50-f7523be61c43
Conway, Paul
765aaaf9-173f-44cf-be9a-c8ffbb51e286

Brandt, Elena, Lam, Jason and Conway, Paul (2025) Why efficient leaders risk appearing as jerks: people expect authority figures to accept organizational sacrificial harm, but view doing so as cold and immoral. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 55 (11), 940-960. (doi:10.1111/jasp.70018).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Organizations sometimes face choices where harming some employees brings overall benefits, e.g., downsizing under crisis. Similar to sacrificial dilemmas where causing harm saves lives, organizational sacrifices may communicate an affective-cognitive trade-off: sacrificing employees to maximize outcomes suggests a relatively cold but competent demeanor, whereas refusal to sacrifice may communicate warmth despite lower competence. Accordingly, people may expect leaders to sacrifice and conform to such role norms themselves. Finally, decision-makers may be able to influence such perceptions through verbal communication. Six preregistered studies (N = 2231) tested these possibilities. Consistent with prior work, people rated decision-makers who rejected sacrificial harm higher in warmth than competence, whereas managers who accepted sacrificial harm lower in warmth than competence. People also expected more sacrificial decisions from high- than low-authority decision-makers, even though they evaluated them similarly when making the same choice. Participants assigned to high versus low authority roles also accepted sacrifices more often, although this effect emerged only in less-experienced workers. Finally, expressing emotional concern for sacrificial victims increased ratings of warmth and moral character, and ratings of warmth and leadership when accepting harm. These findings suggest a paradox leaders may overcome with communication: People may expect sacrificial choices from leadership, even as they infer coldness and immorality (albeit competence) from such decisions—however, clarifying concern for victims may reduce approbation.

Text
Why Efficient Leaders Risk Appearing as Jerks: People Expect Authority Figures to Accept Organizational Sacrificial Harm, but View Doing so as Cold and Immoral - Accepted Manuscript
Restricted to Repository staff only until 15 October 2026.
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Request a copy

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 28 August 2025
e-pub ahead of print date: 15 October 2025
Published date: November 2025
Keywords: decision-making, executive stress, leadership, moral dilemmas, social perceptions

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 507427
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/507427
ISSN: 0021-9029
PURE UUID: 85d03c90-87d8-498f-9982-635fb6ff3018
ORCID for Jason Lam: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-7119-8753
ORCID for Paul Conway: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-4649-6008

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 09 Dec 2025 17:39
Last modified: 10 Dec 2025 03:04

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Elena Brandt
Author: Jason Lam ORCID iD
Author: Paul Conway ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×