Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T23:22:26.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Being Penn State: The Role of Joe Paterno's Prototypicality in the Sandusky Sex-Abuse Scandal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Shaun Wiley  and
Jason J. Dahling
Shaun Wiley*
Affiliation:
The College of New Jersey
Jason J. Dahling
Affiliation:
The College of New Jersey
*
E-mail: swiley@tcnj.edu, Address: Psychology Department, The College of New Jersey, 2000 Pennington Road, Ewing, NJ 08628
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

More than any other man, Mr. Paterno is Penn State – the man who brought the institution national recognition, the man who built a football program based on honor for 46 years, the winningest football coach in Division I history…Paterno is at the core of the university's sense of identity. (Guarino, 2011, November 10)

We believe that Alderfer's (2013) intergroup analysis of the Penn State scandal can be enriched by focusing on the special role that Joe Paterno played in the events leading up to the 2010 grand jury that brought the scandal to light outside the university community. On the basis of the social identity theory of leadership (Hogg, 2001), we argue that the community afforded Paterno the trust that he appears to have abused to suppress the scandal because he embodied the norms, values, and goals of Penn State in a way that made him prototypical of the university. By making the broader group category salient, Paterno was able to shape the behavior of representatives of many sub-groups described by Alderfer within the administration, athletics, and community. Coupled with a high degree of institutional ambiguity, Paterno's prototypicality likely enabled him to suppress the “constructive diversity” (p. 123) of checks and balances that should have operated at Penn State. This disruption to effective intergroup processes prohibited necessary oversight over the PSU athletic program and the Second Mile that otherwise might have uncovered Jerry Sandusky's crimes much earlier.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 152 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alderfer, C. P. (2013). Not just football: An intergroup perspective on the Sandusky scandal at Penn State. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6, 117–133.Google Scholar
Cicero, L., Pierro, A., & vanKnippenberg, D. (2010). Leadership and uncertainty: How role ambiguity affects the relationship between leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness. British Journal of Management, 21, 411–421.Google Scholar
Giessner, S. R., van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2009). License to fail? How leader group prototypicality moderates the effects of leader performance on perceptions of leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 434–451.Google Scholar
Guarino, M. (2011, November 10). Penn State riot: 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-wrongGoogle Scholar
Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2001). The link between leadership and followership: How affirming social identity translates vision into action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1469–1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, M. A., & van Knippenberg, D. V. (2003). Social identity and leadership processes in groups. Advances in experimental social psychology, 35, 1–52.Google Scholar
vanKnippenberg, D. (2011). Embodying who we are: Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1078–1091.Google Scholar
vanKnippenberg, D., vanKnippenberg, B., & Bobbio, A. (2008). Leaders as agents of continuity: Self continuity and resistance to collective change. In Sani, F. (Ed.), Self-continuity: Individual and collective perspectives (pp. 175–186). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership process and follower self-identity. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Popper, M. (2011). Toward a theory of followership. Review of General Psychology, 15, 29–36.Google Scholar
Shondrick, S. J., Dinh, J. E., & Lord, R. G. (2010). Developments in implicit leadership theory and cognitive science: Applications to improving measurement and understanding alternatives to hierarchical leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 959–978.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel, S., & Austin, W. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Ullrich, J., Christ, O., & vanDick, R. (2009). Substitutes for procedural fairness: Prototypical leaders are endorsed whether they are fair or not. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed