152 S. Wiley and J.J. Dahling

Being Penn State: The Role of JoePaterno’s Prototypicality in theSandusky Sex-Abuse Scandal

SHAUN WILEY AND JASON J. DAHLINGThe College of New Jersey

More than any other man, Mr. Paternois Penn State – the man who broughtthe institution national recognition, theman who built a football programbased on honor for 46 years, thewinningest football coach in Division Ihistory . . . Paterno is at the core of theuniversity’s sense of identity. (Guarino,2011, November 10)

We believe that Alderfer’s (2013)intergroup analysis of the Penn State

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Shaun Wiley.E-mail: swiley@tcnj.edu

Address: Psychology Department, The College ofNew Jersey, 2000 Pennington Road, Ewing, NJ 08628

scandal can be enriched by focusing onthe special role that Joe Paterno played inthe events leading up to the 2010 grandjury that brought the scandal to light out-side the university community. On the basisof the social identity theory of leadership(Hogg, 2001), we argue that the communityafforded Paterno the trust that he appearsto have abused to suppress the scandalbecause he embodied the norms, values,and goals of Penn State in a way thatmade him prototypical of the university. Bymaking the broader group category salient,Paterno was able to shape the behav-ior of representatives of many sub-groupsdescribed by Alderfer within the adminis-tration, athletics, and community. Coupled

Paterno & Sitl 153

with a high degree of institutional ambigu-ity, Paterno’s prototypicality likely enabledhim to suppress the ‘‘constructive diversity’’(p. 123) of checks and balances that shouldhave operated at Penn State. This disruptionto effective intergroup processes prohibitednecessary oversight over the PSU athleticprogram and the Second Mile that other-wise might have uncovered Jerry Sandusky’scrimes much earlier.

The Social Identity Theoryof Leadership

Briefly, the social identity theory of lead-ership starts with the premise that peoplesometimes define themselves in terms ofthe groups they belong to, deriving valueand meaning from that social identifica-tion (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). People areno longer guided by their own personalattributes, values, and interests when theyidentify themselves with a social group;rather, they are guided instead by theattributes, values, and interests of the collec-tive. Groups, like Penn State, are cognitivelyrepresented by group members with proto-types that embody the ideal and definingcharacteristics of the collective (Lord &Brown, 2004).

The social identity theory of leadershipfurther postulates that some individualsare seen by other group members as beingsimilar to this group prototype (Hogg & vanKnippenberg, 2003). To the extent that anindividual is seen as prototypical, he or shehas the power to mobilize and influenceother group members. This power developsbecause other group members trust individ-uals who are similar to the group prototype;they expect them to act in the group’sinterests, treat group members fairly, andachieve the group’s goals, thereby strength-ening the group and reaffirming the valueof the group identity (Popper, 2011; vanKnippenberg, 2011). Thus, group prototyp-icality enables a person to exert leadershipinfluence over other group members, atleast when a social identity is strong orsalient (Ullrich, Christ, & van Dick, 2009).

The Social Identity Theoryof Leadership in Action: JoePaterno and Penn State

As Alderfer (2013) noted throughouthis narrative, there is ample anecdotalevidence that Joe Paterno representedPenn State as a prototype, not just for thefootball program but for the university as awhole. For example, Paterno had becomesynonymous with Penn State athletics, themain library was renamed in his honor,and he became the ‘‘archetypal father’’of the university (p. 120). Paterno’s longlegacy and many successes at PSU tookon the quality of a ‘‘symbolic narrative’’and became the ultimate embodimentof what PSU meant to high-identifyingfollowers (Popper, 2011, p. 31; van Knip-penberg, 2011). These actions to affirmand strengthen the PSU identity helpedPaterno develop a wide base of supportand charismatic attributions within thecommunity that enabled him to operatevery independently with minimal threats tohis power (Haslam & Platow, 2001).

Consistent with the social identity theoryof leadership, we argue that Paterno wasable to make his own rules because mem-bers of the Penn State community assumedthat such a highly prototypical group mem-ber would consistently act in the interestsof the group and treat group members ina fair manner. Research indicates that pro-totypical leaders are able to bypass manyof the formal procedures that would beimportant for establishing trust and cred-ibility for a less prototypical group member(Ullrich et al., 2009). Accordingly, whenPaterno failed—either as a football coachor as an ethical leader—he was repeatedlygiven the benefit of the doubt and wasable to act in ways that would not havebeen tolerated by less prototypical groupmembers (Giessner, van Knippenberg, &Sleebos, 2009). People clearly deferred toPaterno on critical decisions, even whenit was clear that he was not behaving inways that align with common leadershipprototypes (c.f. Lord & Brown, 2004; Shon-drick, Dinh, & Lord, 2010). For example,

154 S. Wiley and J.J. Dahling

Mike McQueary deferred to Paterno’sdecision to withhold his observations ofSandusky’s probable child abuse to thepolice, a highly questionable decision thatlikely would have been challenged if madeby anyone other than Paterno in the PennState hierarchy (pp. 119–120). In addition,Paterno rejected a request to resign hisposition despite a series of losing seasonsand a reasoned request from his ostensiblesuperiors (p. 120). The fact that Paternocould act in these ways and exhibit behav-iors consistent with ineffective leadershipschemas became increasingly irrelevantgiven that group identity was highly salient;in these contexts, group prototypicalitytends to override leadership prototypicalityin affecting leadership evaluations (Hogg,2001, p. 189). Thus, Paterno could be anobjectively poor leader and still receiveconsiderable trust, respect, and deferencebecause of his high group prototypicality.

All of these effects posited by the socialidentity theory of leadership were exac-erbated by a high degree of uncertaintysurrounding the unofficial reporting struc-ture of the university and the prospect ofPenn State moving forward without JoePaterno. Alderfer’s narrative reveals thatpeople were suspicious of Sandusky butuncertain of how to respond; the report-ing and authority structure within the PennState leadership hierarchy was unclear, andthe inter organizational relationships andresponsibilities between the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Public Welfare, The SecondMile, and PSU were nebulous. Researchindicates that sources of ambiguity likethese prompt a strong desire among groupmembers to reduce their sense of uncer-tainty. Consequently, they are more likelyto turn to highly prototypical leaders forguidance, giving these leaders even greaterinfluence to wield (Cicero, Pierro, & vanKnippenberg, 2010).

However, the conditions that enabledPaterno to exercise such broad influencerapidly disintegrated after the results ofthe grand jury investigation promptedwidespread outrage outside of the PennState community. The likelihood that

Paterno would lose his job and be dis-graced prompted high-identifying PennState students and alumni to defend himbecause they viewed him as an extension oftheir collective self. According to the logicof the social identity theory of leadership,group members will view threats to theposition and morality of prototypicalleaders as threats to the continuity andvalue of their collective as a whole (vanKnippenberg, van Knippenberg, & Bobbio,2008). Indeed, on November 8, the nightbefore Paterno was fired by the Board ofTrustees after they rejected a plan thatwould have allowed him to retire at theend of the 2011 football season, studentsand alumni rallied around his house. Theirchants of ‘‘We are Penn State’’ illustratethat they saw themselves as defending theuniversity, not just Paterno himself (p. 120).The next day, after Paterno was fired, PSUstudents fought in the streets with policeand destroyed a news van that was presentto enable reporting on the scandal to theoutside world (Guarino, 2011, November10). This too may illustrate the students’view that Paterno’s finding was a challengeto the prestige of the university; Alderfer(2013) identifies protecting that prestige as‘‘the most basic motive’’ of groups involvedin suppressing the scandal (p. 128).

Conclusion

We agree with Alderfer (2013) thatan intergroup perspective enriches ourunderstanding of how different subgroups atPenn State suppressed information regard-ing Jerry Sandusky’s abuse of young boys.Our analysis, rooted in the social iden-tity theory of leadership, shares muchin common with his analysis. We bothargue, for example, that Coach Joe Paternowas able to overrule the formal hierar-chy at Penn State by aligning himself withthe history and values of the institution(pp. 128). We both argue, in addition,that the turning point in the scandal waswhen information about it spread beyondthe boundaries of Penn State, a commu-nity beholden to Paterno’s influence and

Paterno & Sitl 155

motivated by a desire to maintain theprestige of the university. Where Alderfer(p. 132) draws a distinction between anindividual and intergroup understanding ofthe scandal, however, we draw a connec-tion. When one person embodies the pro-totypical norms, values, and interests of agroup, as Joe Paterno did at Penn State, he orshe gains influence over other group mem-bers. This can be for the better; it allowsleaders to take groups in new directions(van Knippenberg, 2011). At Penn State,however, it was for the worse; it allowedJoe Paterno to operate independently of thechecks and balances that would otherwisehave functioned within the university andlikely brought Jerry Sandusky’s crimes tolight much earlier.

References

Alderfer, C. P. (2013). Not just football: An intergroupperspective on the Sandusky scandal at PennState. Industrial and Organizational Psychology:Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6, 117–133.

Cicero, L., Pierro, A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2010).Leadership and uncertainty: How role ambiguityaffects the relationship between leader groupprototypicality and leadership effectiveness. BritishJournal of Management, 21, 411–421.

Giessner, S. R., van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E.(2009). License to fail? How leader group prototyp-icality moderates the effects of leader performanceon perceptions of leadership effectiveness. TheLeadership Quarterly, 20(3), 434–451.

Guarino, M. (2011, November 10). Penn Stateriot: If university can’t fire Joe Paterno, is

something wrong? The Christian Science Monitor.Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Sports/2011/1110/Penn-State-riot-If-university-can-t-fire-Joe-Paterno-is-something-wrong

Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2001). The linkbetween leadership and followership: How affirm-ing social identity translates vision into action.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,1469–1479.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory ofleadership. Personality and Social PsychologyReview, 5, 184–200.

Hogg, M. A., & van Knippenberg, D. V. (2003).Social identity and leadership processes in groups.Advances in experimental social psychology, 35,1–52.

van Knippenberg, D. (2011). Embodying who weare: Leader group prototypicality and leader-ship effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 22,1078–1091.

van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., & Bobbio,A. (2008). Leaders as agents of continuity: Selfcontinuity and resistance to collective change.In F. Sani (Ed.), Self-continuity: Individual andcollective perspectives (pp. 175–186). New York,NY: Psychology Press.

Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processand follower self-identity. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Popper, M. (2011). Toward a theory of followership.Review of General Psychology, 15, 29–36.

Shondrick, S. J., Dinh, J. E., & Lord, R. G. (2010).Developments in implicit leadership theory andcognitive science: Applications to improvingmeasurement and understanding alternatives tohierarchical leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,21, 959–978.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identitytheory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, &W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations(pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Ullrich, J., Christ, O., & van Dick, R. (2009). Substitutesfor procedural fairness: Prototypical leaders areendorsed whether they are fair or not. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 94, 235.