Investigated the effects of 3 factors legitimizing the leader's position, that is, his initially perceived competence, his source of authority in election or appointment, and his task success. 136 male students participated in 4-person discussion groups, arrayed in a 2 * 2 * 2 factorial design. Each group developed a defense for a fictitious friend supposed to have been accused of cheating; thereafter, a group "spokesman" was designated ostensibly to present the defense before a board of inquiry. The choice of a spokesman, by election or appointment and by level of perceived competence, as well as his subsequent success, were controlled by the E. As hypothesized, reactions to the spokesman differed as a function of all 3 factors. The more competent and successful spokesman was endorsed more strongly than the less competent and unsuccessful spokesman; the election or appointment of the spokesman yielded complex interactions with competence and success in determining the favorability of the members' reactions. Implications are drawn from these results regarding the significance of legitimizing mechanisms in shaping group members' reactions to the spokesman role in leadership. (16 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)