ARE BLACK, MALE LEADERS EXPECTED TO HELP OTHER BLACK AMERICANS IN THE WORKPLACE?

Experimental vignette methodology was utilized to investigate the relationships between leader group prototypicality, identity denial, and three leader outcomes (i.e., charisma, trust, and endorsement). Participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: general advocacy (control), ingroup advocacy, and ingroup anti-advocacy. We hypothesized that a Black, male target displaying ingroup advocacy behaviors would be perceived most favorably while a Black, male target displaying ingroup anti-advocacy behaviors would be perceived most poorly. Furthermore, we predicted that identity denial, measured via perceived racial identification, would serve as a mediator. Overall, we found support for our hypotheses, with the exception being that there were no significant differences in leader outcome ratings when comparing the general advocacy condition to the ingroup advocacy condition, even despite the significant mediation throughout all conditions. In summary, Black Americans on average do not expect a Black, male leader to help other Black employees, but he is expected to not devalue or trivialize his Black identity. Doing so would lead to identity denial and less positive evaluations. In contrast, standing in solidarity with the ingroup increases the leader’s perceived racial identification the most and this in turn helps to bolster leader outcomes. Although future research should test climate change as a valid control condition, our pattern of findings suggests that environmental sustainability should be a safe topic for a Black, male leader to advocate for if he wishes to remain more neutral on matters pertaining to race.