Link Search Menu Expand Document
Publications
  1. Definitions of Heroism and Heroic Leadership

Definitions of Heroism and Heroic Leadership

“Frontliners” during the COVID-19 pandemic have been parsed into three broad categories: health care personnel, teachers, and grocery workers (Kinsella and Sumner 2022).1 Within only a few weeks of the onset of the pandemic in early 2020, these frontliners were identified as “heroes” by the media (Cox 2020) and by heroism scientists (Boran et al. 2021). It was easy to understand this hero labeling given that dictionary definitions, lay definitions, and scholarly definitions all converge on several telltale signs of heroism shown by frontliners. Dictionaries describe heroism as “impressive and courageous conduct or behavior” (American Heritage Dictionary 2020), “conduct especially as exhibited in fulfilling a high purpose or attaining a noble end” (Merriam-Webster 2020), “the display of qualities such as courage, bravery, fortitude, unselfishness” (Wiktionary 2020), or “behavior directed toward achieving something very brave or having achieved something great” (Cambridge Dictionary 2020). These heroic attributes most certainly describe the selfless actions of frontliners, especially health care personnel, during the COVID-19 crisis.

Lay definitions of heroism also accurately depict frontliners’ behavior. Studies of lay people’s perceptions of heroes include the idea that heroes are strong, resilient, caring, selfless, reliable, and inspirational (Allison and Goethals 2011). In a prototype analysis of perceived heroism, Kinsella, Ritchie, and Igou (2015) found that heroes are believed to show bravery, moral integrity, conviction, courage, self-sacrifice, protection, compassion, risk-taking behaviors, and life-saving behaviors. Consistent with these lay perceptions, the scientific community defines heroism as extreme prosocial behavior that is performed voluntarily, involves significant risk, requires sacrifice, and is done without anticipation of person gain (Allison, Goethals, and Kramer 2017; Franco et al. 2018). Heroism differs conceptually from altruism, with altruism defined as purely selfless action, and heroism centered on extreme risk and self-sacrificial prosocial behavior (Franco, Blau, and Zimbardo 2011). Other scholars have emphasized the tendency of heroes to deviate from social norms (Efthimiou and Allison 2017), to exceed expectations (Kafashan et al. 2017), to adhere to moral principles (Comerford 2018; Spyrou 2020), and to undergo vast transformation (Campbell 1949).

The terms heroism and heroic leadership are often used interchangeably by scholars. Allison and Goethals (2011) have argued that while not all leaders are heroes, all heroes are leaders. Heroes lead either directly or indirectly (Gardner 1995) by serving as role models for exemplary behavior. Heroic leadership is thus the pinnacle of leadership, featuring the heroic qualities of doing exceptional good, incurring significant self-sacrifice, and taking extraordinary risk. Heroism researchers define heroic leadership as doing the right thing at a critical moment, with the right thing reflecting both great morality and great competence (Allison 2023). There are two components of heroic leadership: (1) what heroic leadership looks like in terms of leaders’ decisions and actions, and (2) how followers mentally construct heroic leadership. These two elements are not mutually exclusive. A leader’s appearance and actions can shape followers’ mental constructions, and followers’ mental constructions of leadership can steer them toward “seeing” heroic traits in leaders that may not exist.

Heroic leaders make choices that involve extraordinary personal, financial, or political risks. They must be ready, willing, and able to act decisively in situations that require immediate action. Franco (2017) suggests that the label of heroic leader should be reserved for larger-than-life figures who take larger-than-life gambles to achieve heroic aims. These aims include advancing socially just principles, transforming societies, leading military into just conflicts, placing organizations at monetary or safety risk to uphold a moral ideal, or helping nations resolve existential crises. Cohen (2010) proposed eight universal laws of heroic leadership. These laws consist of heroic leaders showing integrity, acquiring knowledge, declaring expectations, showing strong commitment, exuding great optimism, caring for their followers, putting duty before themselves, and getting out in front “where the action is.”

One controversial issue in defining heroism has centered on whether a heroic act is made heroic by the exceptional quality of the act or by the recognition of the act by others (Franco et al. 2011). The proverbial question of whether a tree falling in a remote forest makes a sound is an appropriate analogy. If a heroic behavior goes unnoticed, is it heroic? Or is a heroic designation not only essential for the existence of heroism, but also an essential part of the reward of heroism? This latter idea suggests that assigning the status of “hero” to another person may be considered compensation to the hero for their sacrifice. Kafashan et al. (2017, 37) allude to this issue in their evolutionary model of heroism by defining heroes as people “who incur costs (e.g., risk of injury or death; or significant sacrifices such as time, money, or other forms of personal loss).” Kafashan et al. (2017, 37) then make the important observation that “these costs are incurred by the hero without certainty and/or negotiated expectation of direct future rewards.” From this perspective, heroism is heroic because there is no expected compensation for the costs of being heroic. Our DNE model of heroic leadership, however, includes the idea of an implied exchange between heroes and recipients of heroism, to which we turn next.

Table of Contents