Leaders are people who hold power and authority over others to achieve organizational goals. They set the tone for an organization's culture, values, and performance. As such, they must exhibit high levels of legitimacy and competence to maintain their leadership position.
Leaders' private sexual behaviors have been known to affect their perceived legitimacy and competence. This article will explore how leaders' private sexual behaviors can influence the symbolic perception of their legitimacy and competence.
Private sexual behavior refers to actions that take place outside of public view. These behaviors may include extramarital affairs, one-night stands, online hookups, and pornography consumption. Leaders who engage in these behaviors risk damaging their reputation, integrity, and credibility if they become public knowledge.
Bill Clinton, former president of the United States, faced impeachment proceedings after having an affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Legitimacy is the extent to which leaders are seen as deserving or justified in holding their positions. Legitimacy is essential because it enables leaders to command followers' compliance, loyalty, and trust. When leaders exhibit high levels of legitimacy, subordinates tend to respect them more and work harder towards achieving shared objectives. On the other hand, when leaders lack legitimacy, their effectiveness decreases, and they become less capable of achieving their goals.
Competence is a leader's ability to perform tasks effectively. It involves possessing relevant skills, knowledge, and experience to make informed decisions and execute strategies successfully. Competent leaders inspire confidence, boost morale, and encourage employees to strive for excellence. In contrast, incompetent leaders fail to meet expectations and damage the organization's performance and image.
So how do leaders' private sexual behaviors influence their perceived legitimacy and competence? Firstly, such behaviors can be construed as violating social norms and values, which erodes legitimacy.
If leaders engage in extramarital affairs, people may question their fidelity to their spouse, family, and institutional commitments. This could lead to a loss of trust and support from key stakeholders, including shareholders, board members, and customers. Secondly, leaders who engage in private sexual behavior may appear selfish, irresponsible, and unreliable. They may prioritize personal gratification over organizational interests, creating doubts about their professionalism and dedication.
Leaders' private sexual behaviors can undermine their credibility and reputation. People may view them as hypocritical or immoral, casting doubt on their character and motives. This can result in reputational damage, which affects public perception and reputation. Moreover, it can trigger negative emotions, such as anger, frustration, and disgust, leading to reduced job satisfaction, commitment, and motivation among subordinates.
Private sexual behavior can impact leaders' decision-making processes and performance. Leaders who are preoccupied with sex may struggle to concentrate on work, prioritize tasks, and make informed choices. They may also indulge in risky behavior that endangers the organization's stability and success.
Private sexual behavior can divert resources and time away from critical business activities, harming productivity and profitability.
Leaders must maintain high levels of legitimacy and competence to remain effective.
Private sexual behavior can jeopardize this by eroding trust, damaging reputation, impairing judgment, diverting attention, and depleting resources. Thus, leaders should avoid engaging in private sexual behavior that could compromise their leadership position.
How do leaders' private sexual behaviors influence the symbolic perception of legitimacy and competence?
Although research on leader's private sexual behavior has been limited, there is some evidence suggesting that it may impact their perceived symbolic attributes. A study by Stinson et al. (2019) found that when male CEOs had high levels of public visibility for their sexual exploits, they were more likely to be seen as less masculine and less effective as leaders compared to those with low public visibility.