An analysis of transgressive leaders’ appeal and strategies to curb their influence.

By Gerben A. van Kleef Ph.D. Psychology Today

Key points

• Transgressive leaders enjoy growing support and influence.
• Evidence suggests transgressive leaders are appealing not despite their transgressions, but because of them.
• The appeal of transgressive leaders hinges on perceived benefits emanating from their actions.

Transgressive leaders are on the rise. News reports regularly feature fraud, racism, hate speech, sexual misconduct, democratic undermining, and other types of violations by leaders—from captains of industry to influencers to presidents of nations.

One might expect such transgressions to be met with sanctions. However, people often turn a blind eye to leaders who violate norms of fairness, honesty, decency, or care. What’s more, the outcomes of political elections across the globe indicate that people will willingly vote transgressive leaders into office.

Scientific evidence, too, shows that responses to transgressions are less negative than one might intuit. A qualitative study of 246 incidents of norm-violating behavior revealed explicitly negative reactions in only about a third of the cases; in other cases, reactions were neutral, mixed, or even positive.

This is puzzling. Cultures around the world emphasize the importance of doing good. The value of a virtuous life is highlighted in all major religions. It is reinforced through cultural products, from children’s books to Hollywood movies. Why, then, are transgressive leaders endorsed? Psychological research offers three interrelated answers.

Understanding the appeal of transgressive leaders

First, moral judgments are not absolute; they are malleable and context-dependent. What may seem like basic moral principles are not equally shared by everyone. For example, whereas notions of honesty and equality are central to the worldviews of progressive-liberal individuals, conservative individuals place relatively more value on (cultural) “purity” and loyalty.

Moreover, preferences for moral qualities in others are remarkably elastic. If people stand to gain from another’s transgressions, their preferences can shift from moral to immoral conduct. For instance, people respond more leniently to others’ norm-violating behavior when they derive (financial) gains from that behavior.

Other work shows that preferences for moral versus immoral traits in others depend on one’s current goals. In one study, participants playing the role of defense attorney (whose objective was to secure a non-guilty verdict from a jury) reported greater liking of a merciful rather than a merciless jury member. However, those in the role of prosecuting attorney (whose objective was to secure a guilty verdict) preferred a merciless to a merciful jury member. In other words, when a harsher approach was conducive to people’s goals, their preferences for moral versus immoral traits shifted.

Second, people who break the rules radiate an aura of power and dominance. Breaking rules comes with a risk of backlash. By knowingly flouting rules, people signal they can withstand any repercussions—a sign of power. Indeed, several studies show norm violators are perceived as more powerful and dominant than norm abiders. Such perceptions fit the romance of the “strong leader” and fuel the impression that transgressive leaders get things done.

Transgressive leaders are particularly attractive when their actions (appear to) benefit others. In a series of experiments, participants voluntarily granted power and leadership to another person who exhibited “prosocial” norm violations. For instance, in one study, participants conferred power and control over monetary outcomes to a confederate who stole coffee from the experimenter and also offered them a cup.

Third, research shows that dominant leaders are most attractive in times of economic uncertainty, conflict, and competition, when people tend to look for leaders who can ward off apparent threats. Accordingly, support for transgressive leaders increases in competitive situations. It is no coincidence that autocratic leaders habitually point to the danger of “hostile elements,” such as the independent press, immigrants, or the liberal elite. The greater the perceived threat, the greater the attractiveness of transgressive leaders.

Successful autocrats often spin their transgressions as solving the problems of ordinary people. By fabricating or exaggerating enemy threats, they pave the way for unlawful countermeasures that purportedly eliminate those threats. Thus, they simultaneously suggest a solution to a problem and bolster their perceived effectiveness as leaders by fueling perceptions of dominance and power.

Moralizing alone is ineffective

A common reaction to this spiel is moral outrage, which leads opponents to criticize the immorality of transgressive acts. Understandable as this reaction may be, it is not a sufficient antidote to transgressive leaders. The strategy of moralizing transgressions hinges on the assumption that normative behavior is uniformly appreciated and counternormative behavior frowned upon, but as we have seen, mounting evidence indicates this assumption is incorrect.

Transgressive leaders derive their popularity at least in part from their bald norm defiance, particularly when it appears to benefit others. Thus, although clarifying norms is important, harping on immorality is unlikely to be effective. What’s more, it can backfire as it makes the leader’s behavior seem even more ballsy.

How can we curb transgressive leaders?

If the appeal of norm violators hinges on the apparent utility of their behavior, as accumulating evidence suggests, then the remedy is obvious: debunking the idea that breaking rules solves society’s problems. The current analysis suggests two concrete strategies.

First, opponents could dispel the alleged benefits of leaders’ transgressions. While it is typical for transgressive leaders to frame their unlawful behaviors and policies as solutions to pressing problems, their transgressions often do not benefit society; to the contrary, they may damage it. Making that apparent seems critical in counteracting the appeal of transgressive leaders.

Second, opponents could challenge transgressive leaders’ common threat narrative. In the face of competition and conflict, transgressive leaders’ aura of dominance is seen as an asset in fighting off the “enemy.” Alleviating perceptions of conflict should lower transgressive leaders’ allure by reducing the utility of dominance.

In short, evidence suggests transgressive leaders are appealing not despite their deviant behavior, but precisely because of it. This paradoxical insight calls for different ways of dealing with them to uphold humane societies.