2015 - Tntitlement and The Social (De) Construction of Leader Identity

DOI: [10.9774/GLEAF.3709.2015.oc.
00003]
Falling from a Calling

Entitlement and the Social (De)Construction
ofLeaderIdentity
John H. Humphreys and Stephanie S. Pane Haden
Texas A&M UniversityCommerce, USA
John N. Davis
Hardin-Simmons University, USA
OO Calling
OO Leader identity
OO Entitlement
OO Social
construction
OO Zones of
acceptance
Although research on the concept of calling has proliferated in recent years, scholars
are just beginning to explore potential problematic outcomes associated with calling.
Since calling can be an integral part of ones sense of identity, accepting the call to
lead a personally profound mission may also include an unwarranted sense of entitlement. Regrettably, the extant research on entitlement is inconsistent and the concept
has been undervalued in leader identity studies. While researching James Merediths
historic integration of the University of Mississippi, we discovered his belief that he
had been called to the struggle for equality, eventually internalizing a leader identity
consistent with his calling. Yet, we argue his entitlement beliefs ultimately undermined his leadership identity and inhibited his ability to effectively pursue that call.
Accordingly, we use the case of Meredith to illustrate how over-entitlement could
engender the social deconstruction of the leadership identity of a called leader.
John H. Humphreys (D.B.A., Nova Southeastern University) is Professor of Management at

Texas A&M UniversityCommerce, and Texas A&M University System graduate faculty. His
work has appeared in numerous publications including the Harvard Business Review, Human
Relations, Sloan Management Review, Business Horizons, Management Decision, Thunderbird
International 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 of
Management at Texas A&M UniversityCommerce. 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 at
Hardin-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 UniversityCommerce,

P.O. Box 3011, Commerce, TX,
75429-3011, US
! John.Humphreys@tamuc.edu
u Management Department,
Texas A&M UniversityCommerce,

P.O. Box 3011, Commerce, TX,
75429-3011, US
! Stephanie.Pane@tamuc.edu
u Kelley College of Business,
Department of Business, HardinSimmons University, 2200 Hickory

Street, Box 16220, Abilene, Texas
79698-6220, US
! jndavis@hsutx.edu
6
The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 4 October 2015
Greenleaf Publishing 2015
falling from a calling
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 first
known African American student to enroll at the University of Mississippi

(Eagles, 2009). In recounting his life story, Meredith repeatedly describes his
struggle 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 meaningful
undertaking has proliferated in recent years, scholars have largely ignored the
potential failings that could also be associated with a sense of calling (Berkelaar& Buzzanell, 2015). Calls for studies that go beyond only positive frames
are 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 ones sense of identity (Dobrow,
2004), particularly leader identity (Markow& Klenke, 2005), because leadership is perhaps best understood as identity construction (Karp& Helgo, 2009:
892). Yet, while research has shown a connection between calling and identity
the concepts have been related differently by different theorists, and there
seems to be disagreement on whether calling precedes identity or identity precedes calling (Markow, 2007: 32).
In any event, accepting the call to lead such a personally profound undertaking, and receiving the concomitant status associated with it, carries the risk of
an excessive sense of entitlement (see Naumann, Minsky,& Sturman, 2002).
Unfortunately, the extant research on entitlement is also inconsistent, undervalued in leadership inquiries beyond a trait perspective (Tomlinson, 2013), and
missing from leader identity construction studies. Conducting documentary
and archival research of James Merediths historic integration of the University
of Mississippi, we discovered that Meredith believed he had been called to the
struggle for equality, eventually internalizing a leader identity consistent with
his calling. However, we argue his entitlement beliefs ultimately undermined
his leadership identity and inhibited his ability to effectively sustain the pursuit
of that call. Accordingly, we analyzed the case of James Meredith to further
explore the relationship between calling, leader identity, and entitlement.
JAME20_4_John H. Humphreys.indd 7
12/10/15 9:03 AM
john h. humphreys, stephanie s. pane haden, john n. davis
Historical Approach
Numerous researchers have endorsed the use of narrative studies to further
explore processes of leader/follower exchange (e.g., Novicevic et al., 2011;
Shamir, 2011) and identity construction (e.g., DeRue& Ashford, 2010; Humphreys etal., in press). Such elucidations from case studies can be particularly
valuable when attempting to craft conceptual frameworks (de Jong, Higgins,&
van Driel, 2015; Ketokivi& Choi, 2014; Morgan, 2012; Pane Haden, Diaz, Humphreys,& Hayek, 2013).
Our historical method of researching the calling, beliefs, and outcomes
associated with James Merediths leadership involved the process of examining
documentary (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 appropriate meanings from notable excerpts (Bevir, 2012). Approaching data from a
history to theory (Kipping & Usdiken, 2014: 572) perspective, we utilized
an analytically structured history process (i.e., using analytical constructs to
explore textual sources). While analytically structured history retains narrative
as the primary form of explanation, it is driven by concepts (Rowlinson, Hassard,& Decker, 2014: 264). This method is a form of construct-driven narrative
construction where the focus is on interpretation and meaning rather than
the narrow control of variables (Hassard, 2012: 1455). Taking an abductive
approach to theory development (see Ketokivi& Choi, 2014), we interpreted the
underlying identity and entitlement beliefs of James Meredith using an iteration
between case data and theory (see Dubois& Gadde, 2002).
We conducted our research by first examining appropriate biographical passages from Eagles (2009), The Price of Defiance: James Meredith and the Integration of Ole Miss and Doyles (2001), An American Insurrection. We augmented
these 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 Merediths (1966) own, Three
Years in Mississippi and his most recent autobiographical tome, A Mission from
God: A Memoir and Challenge for America (Meredith& Doyle, 2012). Shamir and
Eilam (2005) expressly endorsed the autobiographies of leaders as a suitable
data source for narrative case analysis, as the experiences selected by a leader
to communicate their life-story manifest the leaders identity, their concept of
leadership, and their leadership processes. Therefore, leaders life-stories are
considered valid depositories of meaning (Gabrial, 2000: 15) and can be analyzed to discover those meanings (Shamir& Eilam, 2005: 413).
We acknowledge that we possessed prior knowledge of Merediths integration
of the University of Mississippi to avoid falling into the trap of making claims of
existing ignorance to justify our choice of the case (Siggelkow, 2007: 21). This
case was intentionally selected, as we reasoned that it could offer compelling
8
12/10/15 9:03 AM
insights concerning the role of entitlement in the social construction of the

leadership 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 by
Siggelkow (2007), we first describe the theoretical foundation for the study and
then 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 controversial, as no unified conceptual meaning of calling has been achieved by
researchers (Duffy& Dik, 2013). Even so, the idea of calling has a rich historical
foundation (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 thousands of years into Jewish history, as recorded in the Old Testament of the
Bible (Galles & Lenz, 2013). Gods call on Abram (later Abraham) provides
the archetypical example. God called him to leave his home country and his
relatives and go unto a land that I will shew thee (Genesis 12:1, KJV). This
perspective is replete with religious, moral, and philosophical undertones
(Berkelaar& Buzzanell, 2015: 4), as a calling in this context requires an outside
caller (higher power) and a greater plan for ones life in service to others (Hall&
Chandler, 2005).
During the Reformation, Martin Luther set forth the idea that ones lifes
work could also be a calling from God (Wren& Bedeian, 2009). Weber (1958)
endorsed this viewpoint by considering calling as a divine inspiration to do
morally responsible work (Hall & Chandler, 2005: 160). Here the concept
moves beyond a specific task, mission, or obligation to an overarching life purpose. 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 a
noble, transcendent goal (Duffy& Dik, 2012) (Berkelaar& Buzzanell, 2015: 2)
that could emerge from within to fulfill ones unique purpose (Dobrow, 2013).
Integrating this stance into the calling literature allows for more secular definitions of calling (Bellah etal., 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 that
a perceived calling provides a unifying narrative (Berkelaar& Buzzanell, 2015:
7) to work and/or life (Wrzesniewski, 2003) and that the pursuit of that calling
motivates transcendental engagement with a pro-social purpose (Bellah etal.,
12/10/15 9:03 AM
2007). Assuming this comprehensive approach, Brower (2013) suggested that

the clearest definition of calling was most likely Hall and Chandlers (2005:
160) characterization of an undertaking that an individual perceives as their
purpose in life. Dik and Duffy (2013) added that this perceived life purpose
is constructed through an ongoing process that could change over time. As
these broad perceptions of calling inform how individuals define themselves
(Dik& Duffy, 2009), from a social identity construction perspective (van Knippenberg& 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 interpretation
by all actors in any given leader/follower situation (DeRue& Ashford, 2010;
Fairhurst, 2009; Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe,& Carsten, 2014). Social constructionist views of leadership are centered on follower perceptions of leaders and
the process of leadership itself (Fairhurst& Grant, 2010). As a result, the constructed persona of a given leader is considered of greater significance than are
singular traits or hierarchical authority (DeRue, Ashford,& Cotton, 2009), as
a leaders legitimacy (Luhrmann& Eberl, 2007) and credibility (Karp& Helgo,
2009) are conferred by followers construction of the leaders 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 individual internalization, relational recognition, and collective endorsement. This
social embeddedness implies that leader identity construction is a relational
process (Fairhurst& Uhl-Bien, 2012) and that the roles of leader and follower
must be reciprocally related (DeRue& Ashford, 2010: 629).
Leadership identity is initiated and advanced through social interface, as
leaders and followers co-construct their identities by participating in a claiming
and granting identity formation process (see DeRue& Ashford, 2010). Over
time, leaders and followers internalize the identities that emerge from the
claiming-granting process and the identities become acknowledged through
role acceptance and endorsed within the social context (DeRue & Ashford,
2010). Therefore, the internalization of leader identity is reinforced or diminished by the gradation of relational recognition and endorsement by followers.
This suggests that a followers implicit theory of leadership would be an
important factor within the process of constructing leader identity (DeRue,
Ashford,& Cotton, 2009; Humphreys etal., 2015). Prior research has indicated
that followers attribute leadership to others based upon perceived congruence
with their own implicit theory of leadership (Epitropaki& Martin, 2005; Lord,
1985), their expectations (Kenney, Blascovich,& Shaver, 1994), and the cognitive
construction of leader images that inform their assessments of leader appeal
10
12/10/15 9:03 AM
(Epitropaki etal., 2013; Lord, Brown, Harvey,& Hall, 2001; Sternberg, 1985).
One important construct that could negatively influence a followers normative 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 a
common defining element of entitlement as what individuals perceive they
deserve (Tomlinson, 2013: 68). Although entitlement is often cited as a managerial challenge (Fisk, 2010), extant research on the topic is inconsistent and
often focused on the sense of entitlement possessed by followers.
In an attempt to develop the construct of entitlement for use in management
studies, Naumann, Minsky, and Sturman (2002) integrated the delineations of
entitlement that appeared in the domains of law, philosophy, political science,
marketing, and anthropology. Curiously, their effort excluded the entitlement
work emerging from the fields of personality and social psychology (Tomlinson, 2013). Evolving from the literature related to narcissism, personality
psychologists view entitlement as a stable individual difference that across
situations exerts a global impact on ones 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 entitlement and deservingness (Feather, 2003), such that entitlement has to do with
some 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 personality trait (Fisk, 2010) and a psychologically and socially-governed belief (Feather,
2003). We argue that this integrated framework offers key insights that could
be crucial in understanding the role of entitlement in the social construction
of leader identity. According to Tomlinson (2013: 71):
First, entitlement is most appropriately understood as referring to outcomes associated with the quality or status of a person and/or prescribed via an external frame of
reference Accordingly, entitlement beliefs are an actors beliefs regarding his/
her rightful claim of privileges. Second, these beliefs may or may not correspond
to what observers deem to be the actors rightful claim.
This representation suggests that entitlement beliefs should be conceptualized

along a continuum (Tomlinson, 2013), as followers judge the degree to which a
leaders entitlement claims are legitimate or excessive (Fisk, 2010). Thus, when
followers perceive that a leaders claims exceed what they (followers) deem as
appropriate (i.e., over-entitlement - see Heath, Knez,& Camerer, 1993), subsequent leadership actions and claims may be interpreted as inappropriate,
offensive, and even disruptive (Tomlinson, 2013: 72).
11
12/10/15 9:03 AM
Summary of the Analytical Constructs

The very notion that a called individual believes he or she has been set apart or
marked (Markow& Klenke, 2005: 13) for some specific (and significant) purpose could raise issues of entitlement, as entitlement beliefs often accompany
claims of uniqueness (Brown, 1997). Add in the specter of leadership status
and identity with a perceived calling and ones sense of entitlement is likely
to be further amplified (see DeCremer, van Dijk,& Folmer, 2009), potentially
undermining and weakening the leadership identity of a called leader to such
an extent that the effective enactment of the calling becomes unviable. We
argue that an analysis of the case of James Meredith provides an exceptional
opportunity 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 expanded
review of the Meredith biographies, see Humphreys etal., 2015; Smothers etal.,
2014). He is widely acclaimed for being the first known African American student to be enrolled at the University of Mississippi (Eagles, 2009). Although
his desire to attend the university was not specifically race-related at its origin
(Humphreys etal., 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 and
all of its manifestations (Meredith, 1966: 20-21). His calling appears to have
been recognized by others too, as letters supporting Merediths mission affirm,
You must have been selected by God (9/28/62: 95.25.3.3) as a chosen instrument (9/30/62: 97.25.3.2). He was even characterized as the Moses of his
people (10/01/62: 95.72.3.4).
After President John F. Kennedys inaugural address in 1961, Meredith
decided it was the right time to seek admission to the university (Eagles, 2009).
Although the Supreme Court had ruled that Meredith was legally entitled to
attend the state school, the governor of Mississippi (Ross Barnett) attempted to
block his enrollment (Doyle, 2001). The result was a prolonged legal battle that
ultimately saw Meredith enrolled in 1962 (Eagles, 2009). The ensuing riot is
remembered as one of the worst conflicts of the civil rights era, as several US
marshals were wounded and two civilians were killed during the mle (Doyle,
2001). Today, Merediths historic entry into the University of Mississippi is
considered a decisive juncture in the US civil rights movement (Eagles, 2009).
Meredith, however, asserts that he was never a part of the civil rights movement (Meredith& Doyle, 2012: 18). When examined in detail, he emerges
as far more complicated than a stereotypical movement crusader or hero
12
12/10/15 9:03 AM
(Eagles, 2009: 4). While he clearly felt called to change the status of African
Americans through educational equality and the dismantling of the system of
White 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 contingent on others who supported his conveyed calling. Their support is substantiated by many letters in the Meredith archives containing responses such
as, Our thanks to you for taking such a decisive lead in what is all Americas
struggle for equality (10/01/62: 97.25.3.5). Grounded in the identity proposals
of DeRue and Ashford (2010), Humphreys etal. (2015) argue that this collective endorsement from the social context initiated the social construction of his
leadership identity. According to Humphreys etal. (2015), as Meredith explored
the identity of leader, others recognized his role and responded with follower
identities, further encouraging him to internalize the leadership identity. When
that identity was effectively internalized, Merediths leader identity had been
socially constructed.
However, as conceptualized by DeRue and Ashford (2010), socially constructed leader identities are malleable. Following Merediths graduation from
the University of Mississippi, he frequently felt entitled to espouse controversial
positions 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 by
others, thereby weakening and destabilizing his leader identity (Humphreys
etal., 2015) and hindering his capacity to effectively maintain the pursuit of his
calling. We argue that our analysis of this unique case allows us to model the
relationships and processes associated with leader calling, leader identity, and
leader 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 advantageous when attempting to conceptualize complex and related analytical constructs. Consistent with this perspective, Shamir (2011) called for leadership
researchers to make greater use of historical case studies to depict leadership
processes across time. Accordingly, we interpret the beliefs and leader identity
processes emerging from the case of James Meredith to advance a conceptual
model that illuminates the role of entitlement in the construction, or deconstruction, of the leader identity of a called leader (see Figure 1).
13
12/10/15 9:03 AM
Figure 1: A Conceptual Model of Entitlement Engendering the Social (De)

Construction of the Leadership Identity of a Called Leader
Calling to Lead
(Belief)
Legitimate
Zone of
Acceptance
Internalized
Leader Identity
Entitlement
Beliefs
Leadership
Claims
Over-Entitlement
Grant Claims and

Strengthen Leader Identity
Potential Follower
Recognition and
Endorsement
Refuse Claims and
Weaken Leader Identity
Trait Entitlement
First, Meredith unambiguously portrays his sense of mission from God

(Meredith & Doyle, 2012: 241) as a calling. Even in childhood, his father
informed him that, It is your duty and responsibility to lead our people to their
proper place in the world (Meredith& Doyle, 2012: 33) and James understood
this was to be his destiny (Meredith& Doyle, 2012: 37). According to Meredith
(Meredith& Doyle, 2012: 9):
There was never a time I didnt 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 literature (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 etal., 2007), and the overarching definition of calling as ones purpose
in life (Hall& Chandler, 2005: 160), Meredith consistently and unmistakably
describes 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 of
James Meredith his calling was recognized (see Novak, 1996) long before his
leader identity was effectually internalized. Whereas Meredith proclaims his
calling as something he felt even as a child (Meredith, 1966), Humphreys
etal. (2015) offered compelling evidence that his leader identity construction
process did not commence prior to his historic integration of the University of
Mississippi.
As these authors described, Meredith held no positional power and did not
view himself as a leader when he began the process of admittance (Meredith,
1966). According to Bill Minor, a Mississippi journalist, Meredith never wanted
14
12/10/15 9:03 AM
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 notice
and endorsed him as a leader (e.g., 9/30/62: 97.25.3.2) in the dynamic social
context.
Humphreys etal. (2015) argue that with the recognition of Merediths defiance, the social group began to view Meredith as a leader and collectively
endorsed him as such, thereby enhancing his leadership self-efficacy (Mccormick& Martinko, 2004: 6) and initiating his leadership identity construction
process. As Meredith explored this identity, others relationally recognized
his emerging leadership role and reciprocated with follower identities, which
emboldened him to actively internalize the identity of leader (DeRue& Ashford, 2010). As a result, his identity having been initiated by the collective
endorsement of the social context, relationally recognized and internalized,
Merediths leadership identity became socially constructed and congruent with
his perceived calling.
From this socially constructed leader identity perspective, James Meredith
was in a potent position to have future leadership claims readily granted by followers (see DeRue& Ashford, 2010). Yet, this was not ultimately the case, as
he repeatedly adopted controversial positions in order to attract public attention
(Eagles, 2009) and because he thought his status entitled him to be authoritatively received in any milieu (see Meredith& Doyle, 2012). Meredith baffled
many observers (Eagles, 2009: 434) by actions that appeared inconsistent
with his calling such as joining the staff of the conservative senator from North
Carolina, Jesse Helms, endorsing Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke for Governor
of Louisiana, and even supporting Ross Barnett, the Mississippi governor who
had 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 follower
identities (DeRue & Ashford, 2010) and callings (Dik & Duffy, 2009) can
change over time. Merediths subsequent claims of leadership were often
rejected by others who were no longer willing to grant him the role of leader
and reciprocate with follower identities (Humphreys et al., 2015). This lack
of affirmation led to a negative spiral (DeRue& Ashford, 2010: 633) where
support for his claims essentially faded away. We argue that James Merediths
entitlement beliefs played a significant role in this destructive leader identity
construction process.
In our conceptualization, we ground our entitlement constructs in the integrative entitlement model advanced by Tomlinson (2013). Tomlinson (2013:
15
12/10/15 9:03 AM
71) proposed that entitlement beliefs are constructed through a combination of

trait (i.e., rigid individual difference) and state (i.e., malleable and dependent upon social norms) influences.
From a trait perspective, Meredith unabashedly acknowledges his narcissistic personality. He often refers to his colossal ego and Messiah complex
(Meredith& Doyle, 2012: 9). He admitted that, My ego is so enormous, and
I talk about myself so much, that someone once wisecracked that my name
should be changed to I, James Meredith (Meredith & Doyle, 2012: 22).
Meredith acknowledges that during pivotal periods of his struggle he was busy
reading newspaper clippings about himself (Meredith& Doyle, 2012: 10). Such
narcissistic personalities often display extreme self-absorption, a tendency
toward 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 ones sense of calling (see Grijalva etal., 2015), we include
these conceivable relationships in our representation.
However, we submit that of greater importance is the role of trait entitlement in informing ones entitlement beliefs. Tomlinson (2013: 72) argued
that entitlement beliefs should be conceptualized as a matter of degree. He
envisioned a continuum ranging from legitimate entitlement beliefs to what
he termed over-entitlement (Tomlinson, 2013: 72) and suggested that an
individuals 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 one
antecedent, as other factors may also influence beliefs about ones expected
privileges.
We argue that Merediths entitlement beliefs, driven by a significant degree
of trait entitlement, were further magnified by his sense of calling and leadership identity in the unjust social context. Meredith passionately believes he
was called to his purpose. Such a sense of calling elevates the meaning of ones
mission and, as a result, also exalts the status of the called individual (Heath,
Knez,& Camerer, 1993). This perception of heightened status can engender
over-entitlement beliefs (Tomlinson, 2013). We argue even more so given the
inequalities and indignities symptomatic of the time of Merediths integration efforts. Recent research has indicated that when individuals feel treated
unfairly, this may heighten their sense of entitlement (Zitek et al., 2010)
(Tomlinson, 2013: 74).
Furthermore, if ones calling is to lead (Evans, 1991), over-entitlement is
much more likely (DeCremer, 2003), as once individuals are granted the role
and identity of leader, their expectations of due privileges increase accordingly (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 individuals have cognitive schemas of what
it means to be a leader. From an identity construction perspective, though,
16
12/10/15 9:03 AM
the more central consideration would be the cognitive schemas of followers

and their evaluation of a leaders entitlement beliefs based upon their implicit
theories of leadership.
Prior research has indicated that individuals attribute leadership to others
based 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 their
assessment and attribution (Fisk, 2010; Tomlinson, 2013). Although Humphreys etal. (2015) point to the changing social context as a primary driver in
Merediths post-integration leadership claims often being rejected, we argue
that followers perception of Merediths over-entitlement beliefs also played a
significant role and may explain the divergent function of entitlement beliefs
in 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 in
regard 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 Ashfords (2010) idea of a
zone of acceptance but specifically extend their conceptualization to the role of
entitlement beliefs as an important trigger of subsequent claiming and granting actions.
We argue that when a leaders entitlement beliefs are deemed legitimate
by followers, leadership claims will be considered within the zone of acceptance. Since legitimate attributes and claims match follower expectations of an
effective and desirable leader, followers are likely to grant those claims (Calder,
1977). The resulting relational recognition and endorsement would bolster
the internalized leader identity of the leader (DeRue& Ashford, 2010), further
enhancing the leaders ability to pursue a perceived calling (Markow, 2007).
However, as a leaders entitlement beliefs move down the entitlement continuum, there comes a point where a leaders entitlement beliefs are judged
by followers to be excessive (Fisk, 2010) and redolent of over-entitlement
(Tomlinson, 2013). Over-entitlement by definition indicates that followers
deem a leaders claims are unwarranted and inappropriate (Heath, Knez,&
Camerer, 1993). This assessment suggests that claims made from a position
of over-entitlement will be considered outside of the zone of acceptance. As
a result, ensuing leadership claims will largely be disaffirmed (Tomlinson,
2013) and relational recognition and endorsement withheld. The lack of affirmation could lead to a negative spiral that weakens the leadership identity
of the leader, thereby hindering the ability of a called leader to pursue their
calling.
We argue that the case of James Meredith illustrates this proposition. As followers 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
willing to grant him the identity of leader. The lack of relational recognition
17
12/10/15 9:03 AM
andendorsement weakened Merediths leadership identity so that his claiming, and others granting behavior, largely faded away (Humphreys etal., 2015),
inhibiting his capacity to advance his calling, and transforming him (internalized 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 prevent
meaningful discussion about its shortcomings for particular individuals,
groups, orsociety as a whole (Lips-Wiersma etal., 2009) (Berkelaar& Buzzanell, 2015: 16). As a result, scholars are beginning to address what has been
termed the dark side of calling (Duffy& Dik, 2013: 432). We do not see our
contribution as falling into the dark side, however, as our research is specifically focused on a process by which the successful pursuit of an individuals
call could be disrupted. Instead, we approach the body of research that is
focused on interpersonal deficiencies (Grijalva etal., 2015) as a predictor of
leader dysfunction. Therefore, our primary contribution lies in conceptually
illustrating (see Siggelkow, 2007) how over-entitlement could interrupt the
pursuit of ones calling by engendering the social deconstruction of leadership identity.
Moreover, our case analysis makes an explicit contribution to the leadership
domain because it is not focused on typical manager/subordinate relationships
(Uhl-Bien etal., 2014). Bedeian and Hunt (2006: 199) argued that, To truly
study leadership requires the identification of individuals who have differentiated themselves in terms of their influence (beyond that associated with
their formal position power or authority), not simply the study of individuals
whose names appear in a box with a title on an organization chart. We argue
that Merediths case provides a creditable opportunity to purposely analyze the
construction of leadership identity in a called leader.
We also contend that our conceptualization provides further evidence that
the current historic turn (Kipping& Usdiken, 2014: 535) in organizational
research can provide fruitful avenues to the extension of theory (Rowlinson,
Hassard,& Decker, 2014). When theory is at a nascent point, interpretive studies
of historical cases can provide more compelling insights than empirical studies
can offer (Siggelkow, 2007) and often serve as constructive intermediaries that
support subsequent empirical research (Eisenhardt& Graebner, 2007). Thus,
we intend that a contribution of our research is the promotion of historical
approaches to theory development.
We do recognize that historical case-based research places greater emphasis
on reflexivity than replication logic and that scholars working from a positivist
tradition might consider such polymorphic (Alvesson& Gabriel, 2013: 245)
18
12/10/15 9:03 AM
methods a limitation (Eisenhardt& Graebner, 2007). However, arguing from a

non-positivist perspective, Dubois and Gadde (2014) contend that a premature
focus on generalization could impede the constructive derivation of insights
from cases. Such conflicting views suggest that the limitations of our study
will largely be a reflection of the epistemological and ontological construction
of readers (see Parry etal., 2014). In any event, we ask readers to evaluate our
conceptualization based upon the plausibility (Weick, 1989), reasonableness
(Goodman& Pryluck, 1974), and persuasiveness (Siggelkow, 2007) of our arguments. Testing of the proposed relationships within our case conceptualization
should commence as a basis for future research.
In addition, we think this case may provide further explanation as to why
individuals with narcissistic leanings often emerge as leaders (Judge, LePine,&
Rich, 2006) but are judged as ineffective over time (see Nevicka etal., 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 stream
differentiating agentic and communal narcissism (see Luo, Cai, Sedikides,&
Song, 2014).
Also, while we introduced entitlement beliefs and implicit leadership theories as constructs in this study, future research should examine the relationship
between entitlement beliefs and implicit follower theories (IFT, see Sy, 2010), as
the IFTs of leaders can affect how they interact with followers (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009). It is conceivable that leaders with an undue sense of
entitlement may be predisposed (Lord& Maher, 1993) towards more negative
IFTs that could inhibit relational recognition and spawn adverse perceptions
of leader legitimacy (Luhrmann& Eberl, 2007) and credibility (Karp& Helgo,
2009), which in turn could reduce the effective dimensions of the zone of
acceptance constructed by followers.
Conclusion
Even though research on callings has proliferated recently, scholars are just
beginning to consider negative elements and problematic outcomes that could
be associated with calling. Because a sense of calling can be central to ones
sense of identity, accepting the call to lead such a transcendent pursuit may
prompt a corresponding sense of entitlement. Yet, we know little about the
role of entitlement beliefs in informing leadership identity in called leaders.
Accordingly, we analyzed the historic case of James Merediths integration (and
post-integration) to illustrate how over-entitlement could engender the social
deconstruction of the leadership identity of a called leader, thereby making the
pursuit unsustainable.
19
12/10/15 9:03 AM
References
Alvesson, M.,& Gabriel, Y. (2013). Beyond formulaic research: In praise of greater diversity
in organizational research and publications. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 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: Individualism 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 (sometimes) 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 Learning& 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.), Psychological 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? Business
History, 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.
20
12/10/15 9:03 AM
Dobrow, S.R. (2004). Extreme subjective career success: A new integrated view of having a
calling. Academy of Management Conference Best Paper Proceedings (August: B1-B6).
Dobrow, S.R. (2013). Dynamics of calling: A longitudinal study of musicians. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 34(4): 431-452.
Doyle, W. (2001). An American Insurrection. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case
research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7): 553-560.
Dubois, A.,& Gadde, L. (2014). Systematic combining A decade later. Journal of Business
Research, 67(6): 1277-1284.
Duffy, R.D.,& Dik, B.J. (2013). Research on calling: What have we learned and where are we
going? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3): 428-436.
Eagles, C. (2009). The Price of Defiance. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Eisenhardt, K.M.,& Graebner, M.E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and
challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 25-32.
Epitropaki, O.,& Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of
implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4): 659-676.
Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leadership and followership theories in the wild: Taking stock of information-processing
approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. Leadership Quarterly, 24(6): 858-881.
Evans, R.C. (1991). Leadership as a calling. Business Quarterly, 56(2): 76-77.
Fairhurst, G.T. (2009). Considering context in discursive leadership research. Human Relations, 62(11): 1607-1633.
Fairhurst, G.T.,& Grant, D. (2010). The social construction of leadership: A sailing guide.
Management Communication Quarterly, 24(2): 171-210.
Fairhurst, G.T.,& Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Organizational discourse analysis (ODA): Examining
leadership as a relational process. Leadership Quarterly, 23(6): 1043-1062.
Feather, N.T. (2003). Distinguishing between deservingness and entitlement: Earned outcomes versus lawful outcomes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(3): 367-385.
Fisk, G.M. (2010). I want it all and I want it now! An examination of the etiology, expression, and escalation of excessive employee entitlement. Human Resource Management
Review, 20(2): 102-114.
Gabrial, Y. (2000). Storytelling in Organizations: Facts, Fictions, and Fantasies. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Galles, J.A.,& Lenz, J.G. (2013). Relationships among career thoughts, vocational identity,
and calling: Implications for practice. The Career Development Quarterly, 61(3): 240-248.
Goodman, R.S.,& Pryluck, C. (1974). The tape recorder interview as data in film history.
Speech Monographs, 39: 306-311.
Grijalva, E., Harms, P.D., Newman, D.A., Gaddis, B.H.,& Fraley, R.C. (2015). Narcissism
and leadership: A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Personnel
Psychology, 68(1): 1-47.
Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of leadership.
Human Relations, 58(11): 1467-1494.
Hall, D.T., & Chandler, D.E. (2005). Psychological success: When the career is a calling.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2): 155-176.
Hassard, J.S. (2012). Rethinking the Hawthorne Studies: The Western Electric research in its
social, political and historical context. Human Relations, 65(11): 1431-1461.
21
12/10/15 9:03 AM
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 of
the narcissistic personality to self-and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, 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: More
than 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 organizational 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: Integrating 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.
22
12/10/15 9:03 AM
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 employee
entitlement. 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 orchestra. 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 history: A dialogue between historical theory and organization theory. Academy of Management 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). Whats 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 entrepreneurship 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 consequences 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 review
and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 25(1): 83-104.
van Knippenberg, D.,& Hogg, M.A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25: 245-297.
Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York, NY: Charles
Scribners 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 spirituality: A reflexive perspective for organizational leaders and professionals. Research in
Ethical Issues in Organizations, 5: 175-201.
23
12/10/15 9:03 AM
Wren, D.A.,& Bedeian, A.G. (2009). The Evolution of Management Thought (6th ed.). Hoboken, 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 behave
selfishly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2): 245-255.
24
12/10/15 9:03 AM
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

2015 - Tntitlement and The Social (De) Construction of Leader Identity

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

2015 - Tntitlement and The Social (De) Construction of Leader Identity

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

DOI: [10.9774/GLEAF.3709.2015.oc.

Falling from a Calling

John H. Humphreys (D.B.A., Nova Southeastern University) is Professor of Management at

Texas A&M UniversityCommerce,

Texas A&M UniversityCommerce,

Department of Business, HardinSimmons University, 2200 Hickory

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

falling from a calling

known African American student to enroll at the University of Mississippi

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

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

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

falling from a calling

insights concerning the role of entitlement in the social construction of the

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

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

2007). Assuming this comprehensive approach, Brower (2013) suggested that

The Social Construction of Leader Identity

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

falling from a calling

This representation suggests that entitlement beliefs should be conceptualized

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

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

Summary of the Analytical Constructs

The Case of James Howard Meredith

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

falling from a calling

A Framework of Entitlement Engendering the Social (De)

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

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

Figure 1: A Conceptual Model of Entitlement Engendering the Social (De)

Grant Claims and

First, Meredith unambiguously portrays his sense of mission from God

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

falling from a calling

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

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

71) proposed that entitlement beliefs are constructed through a combination of

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

falling from a calling

the more central consideration would be the cognitive schemas of followers

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

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

Contributions, Limitations, and Future Research

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

falling from a calling

methods a limitation (Eisenhardt& Graebner, 2007). However, arguing from a

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

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

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

falling from a calling

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

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

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

falling from a calling

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

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

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

También podría gustarte

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

Figure 1: A Conceptual Model of Entitlement Engendering the Social (De)

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

Greenleaf Publishing 2015

Greenleaf Publishing 2015