Link Search Menu Expand Document
Publications
  1. Exchange Models of Leadership and Heroism

Exchange Models of Leadership and Heroism

Sociologists and social psychologists have long noted the importance of equitable exchange in human relationships. Homans (1958) was among the first to formally propose the basic tenets of social exchange theory. First, he stated the basic economic utility perspective that people involved in a social relationship are motivated to maximize their profits and minimize their costs. Second, he argued that people undergo an evaluation of the social, economic, and psychological aspects of their relationship, allowing them to consider alternatives that may offer more benefits compared to their present relationship. Finally, Homans acknowledged that the exchange operates within cultural norms. In other words, social exchanges reflect both societal constructions and our interpretations of those constructions. As such, social exchanges are subject to modification as normative conditions and parties in the relationship change. The temporal malleability of exchange is an issue that Homans did not directly address in his theorizing, and it is central to our DNE model of heroic leadership.

Social exchange theory is similar to equity theory (Adams 1963), which also maintains that people seek fairness in social relationships. Fairness exists when each party in the relationship enjoys the same ratio of outcomes (benefits) to inputs (resources brought to the relationship). Thibaut and Kelley (1959) developed a similar framework to describe people’s tendency to evaluate two dimensions of a relationship: the quality of their relationship via the comparison level, defined as their expectations for what they should receive from a relationship, and the quality of alternatives to the relationship via the comparison level for alternatives, defined as the lowest outcomes that one will accept in light of available alternatives. Both of these constructs—the comparison level and comparison level for alternatives—are key elements of our DNE model, as they suggest the processes of evaluating the fairness of the hero–recipient exchange relationship, as well as mechanisms for changing the nature of that relationship.

In 2005, David Messick proposed an exchange model of the leader–follower relationship derived from these early theories of exchange and equity. According to Messick, “There is a type of equilibrium that is established between leaders and followers that reflects incentives that both have to maintain their relationship” (2005, 82). By equilibrium, Messick referred to the state in which two opposing forces are deemed by both parties to be balanced and fair. Messick’s analysis focused on five dimensions through which leaders and followers exchange goods and services. While leaders offer followers a vision for the group, followers offer the leader their focus. Whereas leaders provide security, followers provide loyalty. Leaders also offer followers effectiveness, inclusion, and pride, and in return followers give leaders their commitment, cooperation, and respect. Thus, an important part of the leader–follower exchange includes the leader providing a service to the group, and group members, in turn, providing the leader with appropriate recognition. Although Messick acknowledged that these five dimensions of exchange vary in importance from situation to situation, he did not spell out the impetus for change in the exchange relationship between leaders and followers. Our DNE model proposes a series of processes beginning with an awareness of inequity in the relationship, followed by the initiation of steps taken to obtain more desirable options both within and outside the existing relationship.

Theories of equitable exchange between heroes and recipients of heroism have also been proposed. As noted earlier, Kafashan et al. (2017, 37) allude to heroes absorbing costs for their heroism without expecting any reward. Still, Kafashan et al. acknowledge that while heroes may not consciously perform their heroic acts with rewards in mind, there may be unconscious motivations driving heroic action. For example, prior to engaging in a heroic act, a potential hero may harbor a less-than-fully conscious awareness that such an act, while costly, may also attract attention, admiration, and status—rewards that could increase the potential hero’s reproductive fitness. In short, a quick cost–benefit analysis at an unconscious level may precede a heroic act, or in some cases, the failure to perform a heroic act, with the analysis consisting of rough computations of what might constitute an equitable exchange for the potential hero. Such conscious or unconscious computations probably do not occur when heroism requires instant action, as when someone is drowning or choking on food. But conscious or unconscious considerations of equitable exchange may occur when potential heroes decide whether to pursue dangerous careers as a firefighter, health care worker, or law enforcement officer.

From Kafashan et al.’s (2017) evolutionary perspective, potential heroes may anticipate the heroic traits assigned to them after successfully performing a heroic behavior. The traits assigned to heroes, and their value to the hero, are important components of our DNE model. In arguing that holding the hero label signals greater reproductive fitness, Kafashan et al. (2017) suggest that heroes may perform heroic behavior as a means to an end, with the expectation of some kind of compensation or reward from recipients or from one’s tribe. Our DNE model is mute on the issue of whether heroes harbor this ulterior motive, but it does assume that recipients and beneficiaries of heroism believe that an important form of compensation for heroic behavior is to confer the hero label to the heroic actor. The benefits of such a designation include recognition, fame, and all the fitness benefits associated with recognition and fame. Other scholars have also proposed the idea of a hero contract in which heroes are expected to “go the extra mile” in keeping with the role, expectations, and definitions of a hero (Sumner and Kinsella 2021).

To summarize, we propose that the act of bestowing the label of hero is a commodity in an exchange relationship between heroes and recipients of heroic action. We agree with Kafashan et al. (2020) that heroes may view the hero designation as a valued “good” in the exchange. Clearly some heroes perform their heroic acts fueled by purely altruistic motives (Franco et al. 2011), but even so, our DNE framework proposes that recipients may frame their relationship with the hero in terms of an equitable exchange, even if heroes do not. Thus, our framework for understanding heroism involves conceptualizing heroes and recipients of heroism as two parties honoring an implicit contractual arrangement, with recipients more likely than heroes themselves to embrace this unwritten understanding and with recipients also likely to view their use of the label of “hero” as a form of payment to the hero (Allison and Goethals 2019). Thus, consistent with Sumner and Kinsella’s (2021) hero contract framework, people form a mental pact with their heroes containing the implicit terms of an equitable exchange between the two parties. Specifically, the act of assigning the “hero” label to someone carries with it an unspoken agreement in which we consent to give heroes our adulation and support, but in return they must maintain an idealized image of human greatness.

This exchange model of heroism and heroic leadership nicely explains the ruthless speed with which people turn against their heroes the moment those heroes show human fallibility. It did not take long at all for heroes such as Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, Kevin Spacey, and Andrew Cuomo to fall from grace once news of their moral failings came to light. When heroes fail to honor the terms of the implicit contract requiring them to behave virtuously, people’s adulation is often replaced by venomous hatred, with many followers seeking punishment for the breach of contract by subjecting fallen heroes to vicious ostracization or worse. Our analysis of the DNE model of heroic leadership focuses less on the hero breaking the implied hero–recipient contract than recipients failing to honor their terms of the contract. We now turn to that aspect of the strained exchange relationship during the COVID pandemic.

Table of Contents