Savvy or savage? How worldviews shape appraisals of antagonistic leaders.

Existing theories present a mixed account of how perceivers' views of a target person's antagonism relate to their perceptions of the target's general competence and leadership effectiveness. We argue that, rather than being universal, the relationship between these perceptions varies according to perceivers' idiosyncratic worldviews. In particular, we theorize and find across seven studies (total N = 2,065) that competitive worldview (CWV) serves as a lens through which perceivers interpret and evaluate others' antagonistic behavior. Our studies reveal that those who see the social world as a competitive jungle (i.e., high CWV) have more positive views of the competence and leadership of antagonistic individuals than those who see the social world as cooperative and benign (i.e., low CWV). We also find that CWV shapes the antagonism that perceivers attribute, post hoc, to successful leaders during their rise to the top. Finally, we consider workplace implications, finding that CWV moderates the relationship between managers' antagonistic behavior and a range of employee outcomes, including motivation and job satisfaction. Overall, we argue that individuals' folk theories of the social world (and CWV in particular) can help scholars more fully understand how basic dimensions of social perception relate to one another across perceivers. Practically, worldview-dependent social perception might help explain how and why potentially antagonistic leaders might be excused, tolerated, or even endorsed by the people around them. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).