Terrorist leaders are constrained to ideological conformity by their followers’ expectations.

Evidence

Verba (1961, p. 149) notes that while followers depend on their leaders, the reverse also holds: “The conflict between directing the group and maintaining one’s acceptance by the group would seem to be the unique problem of the group leader.” Leaders must spend as much time maintaining the group as in achieving instrumental goals. This balance is easier to attain when the leader is perceived as acting as an agent of impersonal forces and in the service of group norms (Verba, 1961, pp. 172–175). In terrorist as in revolutionary organizations, the ideological purity of the leader must be above question; the leader must be the chief interpreter and communicator of the group’s beliefs and aims. Leaders are, thus, under great pressure to conform to group norms, making innovation or compromise difficult. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4158

Categorization

• XREF: The leader-as-agent-of-impersonal-forces constraint explains why an individual cannot privately maintain ironic distance from the collective’s essentialist identity — relevance for the collective-vs-individual strategic essentialism question. — connects to: Terrorist leaders are themselves tightly constrained by group norms and ideology — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4158; Low-level terrorist groups restrained their methods to fit their self-image as armies — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4078

Broader Connections

• Terrorist leaders are themselves tightly constrained by group norms and ideology #corroborates (0.95) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4158
• Low-level terrorist groups restrained their methods to fit their self-image as armies #exemplifies (0.75) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4078