Collective mobilisation as a contest for influence: Leading for change or against the status quo?

Leadership is central to understanding social continuity and change, though rarely features in the study of collective action. Across three experiments (total N = 687), we examine how followers’ support for pro-change leaders (Experiments 1–3) and pro-status quo leaders (Experiments 1–2) varies as a function of leader alignment with group normative trajectory, the presence (vs. absence) of competing leaders, and shared group membership with followers. When pro-change leaders were aligned with the normative trajectory of the group, they elicited higher collective action and voting intentions compared to pro-status quo leaders (Experiments 1–2). When change leaders were non-aligned, participants instead supported the pro-status quo alternative (Experiment 1–2). Finally, the presence of leadership contests with aligned change leaders (Experiment 2) and pro-status quo leaders (Experiments 2–3) reduced collective action and support for non-aligned change leaders or those facing a polarised followership. Implications for research at the nexus of leadership and collective action are discussed.