While in PR circles, no publicity is thought to be bad publicity, there are numerous examples of where scandals have been enough to sink the career of a leader without trace.  The fact that newspapers hunt down such titillating stories makes them a regular staple of the news cycle, but this lust for scandal can ensure that some of those scandalized live to tell the tale.

New research from the University of Notre Dame highlights how excessive sensationalizing of an issue in the media can ensure that the general public actually feel sorry for an individual rather than the need to condemn them.  The researchers examined how coaches in NCAA football and basketball competitions responded after they violated the rules.

“Our central finding is that organizations are less likely to dismiss stronger-performing leaders when there is a high severity gap, and this is because internal stakeholders want to protect their organization and its central figures from what they perceive as undue scrutiny,” they explain. “Weaker-performing leaders, however, are apt to get dismissed following a scandal with a larger severity gap. We argue this is because the excess drama from a large severity gap provides insiders with a perfect opportunity to scapegoat leaders they do not perceive as integral to the organization.”

Notes on a scandal

The researchers believe their work ably demonstrates the important role any disconnect between the perceptions of a scandal and the reality of a scandal.

They cite the example of Equifax’s Rick Smith, who was boss between 2005 and 2017 and was widely regarded as a strong performer.  He was sacked in the wake of the data scandal that received a huge amount of publicity, but for whom the publicity was largely commensurate to the ‘crime’ committed.  By contrast, United Airlines’ Oscar Munoz, also regarded as a strong performer, was able to keep his job after a social media storm about a passenger being forcibly removed from a flight.

The authors believe these examples underline the importance to which the perceived scrutiny the individual is placed under aligns with the severity of the violation in determining the punishment metered out to that person, especially if they’re a strong performer.

Less latitude

If you’re a weaker performer, as former Papa John CEO John Schnatter was perceived as being when he became embroiled in controversy, he was quickly shuffled out the door.  The authors believe their work has implications, not only for business, but for areas such as politics.

“In our current political climate, it is often difficult to find any parallel between the actual severity of a political transgression and the extent to which it resonates with conventional and social media,” they explain. “If media outlets and broader society on social media continually run with and sensationalize stories about politicians that are not actually that damaging, we theorize and find that Republicans and Democrats will circle around their political leaders and protect them to an even greater degree in the event that a more legitimate scandal emerges in the future.”

They suggest that the United Airlines example is illustrative, as when a large severity gap exists, it can prompt more severe and legitimate controversies to be brushed under the carpet.

What’s more, even if strong-performing leaders are forced from their role after a scandal, the evidence suggests that they pretty quickly find themselves in a new role of equivalent stature pretty quickly.