Cutting-Edge Leadership

What 100 Years of Research Tells Us About Effective Leadership

Ronald E. Riggio, Ph.D. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:13:14 +0000

What do we actually know about effective leadership? One hundred years of research on the topic has led to some clear answers.

First, are leaders born or made? The answer is both, but more made than born. Leadership is a complex and sophisticated social role. Although certain qualities do predispose some people to attain leadership positions and be better at leading, effective leaders actually hone their skills through experience, conscious self-development, education, and training.

Second, does leadership training work? Relatively recent analyses of over 100 years of leadership training and development efforts suggests that most programs do indeed lead to some positive change. Is the change dramatic? Sometimes. Certain crucible, or trigger, events can lead to substantial improvement in leadership ability. For the most part, however, leadership development is a long-term and incremental process.

Third, are there certain elements that all (or most) great leaders share? We are quite sure that the theory of transformational leadership represents the very best elements of leadership. Effective leaders tend to be inspirational, visionary, and serve as positive role models for their followers. But the very best leaders also care sincerely about their followers, their well-being and their personal development. Great leaders also empower followers and encourage them to be creative and to take initiative.

Fourth, is leadership situation specific? In other words, if you are a successful leader in one area, such as at work, will you also be a successful leader in the community, or in a different company? Although this question has not been thoroughly researched, it is likely that the same transformational qualities and skills will transfer to other settings. The limitation, of course, is that knowledge of the particular setting, and understanding of its “culture” is required. So, a period of adjustment and learning is needed to allow the leader to use transformational abilities in the new environment.

Finally, how early in life does leadership begin to develop? This is a fascinating question, and one that our current research program is exploring. There has been little longitudinal research on the early “roots” of leadership, but our initial results suggest that the foundation of leadership begins at a very early age. Encouragement from parents and teachers likely plays a very important part, as well as early exposure to a variety of social situations, and novel experiences.

What are the implications for personal leadership development? Leadership is complex, but it can be developed. We know the building blocks of leadership success, and it is clear that devoting time and energy to your personal development pays off.

The Velvet Revolution: A Perfect Example of Shared Leadership

Ronald E. Riggio, Ph.D. — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:09:50 +0000

I have just returned from the International Leadership Association (ILA) conference in Prague, Czech Republic, and heard there the most remarkable story of shared leadership. Monika Macdonagh Pajerov, President of YES for Europe and an activist during the Velvet Revolution, presented a clear and concise account of the leadership process in one of the most remarkable national transformations in recent history.

Anyone visiting the Czech Republic, and its beautiful capital city, Prague, is struck by the enormous positive transformation that has occurred in the 20 years since the nation overcame the oppressive communist regime through a bloodless revolution. Monika's account of the Velvet Revolution demonstrated that rather than a movement organized around a single individual or group of individuals, this transformation came about by the collective efforts of a number of people - students, university faculty, and trade workers - who individually and collectively took it upon themselves to work to overthrow the communist regime.

Our conference began with a video welcome from the first post-revolution president, Vaclav Havel - who was a playwright! He became the focal point for many members of the revolution, but as he suggested in his talk, "I never considered myself a leader." He was instead one of many who shared the leadership work.

It is the 20th anniversary of the Velvet Revolution, with celebrations continuing in Prague during the week. To see Prague and the Czech Republic today, it is hard to believe that a mere 20 years ago it was a country repressed by a communist dictatorship. This transformation occurred through the collective efforts of many leaders - many of whom did not have any formal titles or roles.

In their groundbreaking book on shared leadership, Craig Pearce and Jay Conger and their colleagues have many examples of shared leadership and discuss the concept. However, I think the Velvet Revolution represents the perfect example of a transformation that succeeded due to the collective efforts of many people who took it upon themselves to be leaders.

Top Level Leadership: The Triumph of Humility Over Arrogance

Ronald E. Riggio, Ph.D. — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:08:33 +0000

This has been a very good two weeks, immersed in the study and discussion of leadership. Last week was the Peter Drucker Centennial Celebration, and many of the most renowned leadership thinkers were present. This week I am in Prague for the annual meeting of the International Leadership Association, and it too is occurring during another anniversary celebration: the Velvet Revolution and the fall of the Iron Curtain.
Last night a personal video made by President Vaclav Havel opened the ILA conference (he had an important meeting elsewhere, but made this video to discuss his thoughts on leadership). What I was struck most by was his humility. This soft-spoken former playwright, who played a key role in the Velvet Revolution, and who is the President of a vibrant, re-born nation, said, "I didn't really consider myself a leader." He went on to say that "others looked to me for direction," and he spoke of serving the cause rather than being "in charge."
Last week, Jim Collins mentioned the importance of humility for effective and authentic leadership. He contrasted leaders who display humility versus those who are arrogant and egotistical. I have to admit that when I first read Collins discussing the importance of humility for "Level 5" leaders, I thought perhaps this was merely an artifact. Research often contradicts this notion because successful leaders have extremely high levels of self-confidence and a sense of self-efficacy (being able to "move mountains"). So, it seemed to me a paradox. How can a sometimes supremely confident leader also be humble?
Yet I now get it. The successful leader's confidence is an outgrowth of the passion and commitment to the cause. The leader believes, like Havel, that change will happen through persistence, hard work, and knowing that you are doing the right thing (and that you are the person to help get it done). The cause becomes bigger than the leader, and the leader is serving the cause. When the cause is directed toward making things better for those you represent - whether it be the citizens of a nation, or the employees and customers of a business enterprise - the very best leaders are humbled by the magnitude of the responsibility. Sure they have big egos, most successful people do. But, they subordinate their egos to the importance of the cause.
Arrogant leaders, on the other hand, believe that they are greater than the cause [OK, I know I'm oversimplifying things, but the issue is about the place that followers play in the equation]. As followers, we are drawn to leaders who appear to be powerful and effective, but we should also seek out and support those leaders who have humility. Those who clearly recognize and convey that the cause is bigger than they are. We need to avoid those leaders who obviously are putting themselves, and their egos, before the cause [Believe me, I've also seen some of those types of leaders these past two weeks]. For ultimate success for an organization, a political movement, or a business, the extraordinary, but humble, leader, will always trump the arrogant one.

Leadership Vs. Management: What’s the Difference?

Ronald E. Riggio, Ph.D. — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:14:22 +0000

We just finished the Peter Drucker Centennial celebration in Claremont. The world's foremost leadership and management scholars spoke at the week-long event, including Jim Collins, Stephen Covey, Ken Blanchard, Charles Handy, Frances Hesselbein, Warren Bennis, and a host of others.

Several of the speakers discussed the difference between leadership and management. Typically this is that leaders engage in the "higher" functions of running the organization, while managers handle the more mundane tasks. But I think it's all about semantics. Successful and effective leaders and managers must do the same things. They need to set direction for followers and the organization, motivate, develop good working relationships with followers, be positive role models, and focus on goals.

So, what's the difference? Interestingly, I didn't see any sort of consensus among the various leadership/management gurus. Through most of his long professional life, Peter Drucker preferred the term "management" over "leadership." That was because in Drucker's eyes management is a noble endeavor. His conceptualization of good management was identical to how most scholars view leadership.

I also think there is a history to the use of the two terms. In business schools (and "Management" departments) the term manager was adopted because the prevailing view was that managers were in charge. Managers were still seen as professional workers with critical roles and responsibilities to help the organization succeed, but leadership was mostly not in the everyday vocabulary of management scholars.

Organizational psychologists and sociologists, on the other hand, became interested in the various roles that were played in all kinds of groups, and the term "leader" was defined as the person who played a key role in group decision making and setting direction and tone for the group. For psychologists, manager was a profession, not a key role in a group.

When psychologists and sociologists and their research began to be commonplace in business school settings, they imported the term "leadership." But the terms were not necessarily used in the same way. Some of the theories that emerged from management scholars focused on "management," such as Hersey and Blanchard's work with the Managerial Grid (later re-named Leadership Grid). While psychologists, such as Fred Fiedler, focused on "leadership," with his Contingency Model of Leadership.

So for me, and likely for most scholars of management/leadership, the semantics are a non-issues. Good leadership or good management is an important and noble endeavor.

The Anti-Leader: How Bad Leaders Get Everything Wrong

Ronald E. Riggio, Ph.D. — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:06:53 +0000

I'm coaching a professional colleague who is encountering the very worst sort of leadership imaginable. The tales of this leader's bad and vicious behavior are truly remarkable. In an effort to better understand how such bad leadership operates, I thought of this: Let's take a theory of good leadership - transformational leadership - and flip it around. If bad leadership is the opposite of good leadership, then we should be able to take the components of transformational leadership and see how this exceptionally bad leader does the opposite.

So, here goes. The first component of transformational leadership is idealized influence. The good leader is a positive role model and deals fairly with followers. The good leader "walks the talk," and would never put personal gain over the needs of the followers. This anti-leader does the opposite. She demands complete, unquestioning loyalty, and never shares how or why decisions are being made. She plays favorites, and rewards blind loyalty with perks. Rather than portraying that she is proud to lead this group, she says, "they don't pay me enough to deal with the likes of you."

The second component of transformational leadership is inspirational motivation. The good leader is optimistic and uses a positive, compelling vision to inspire followers and spur them to better performance. This anti-leader tells followers who were faced with budget cuts, "just don't work so hard; do only what is necessary to get by." And, the leader's style is punitive. Nothing kills motivation faster than getting punished for any misstep, and never getting rewarded for positive behavior.

Transformational leaders use intellectual stimulation to spur followers to be creative and "think outside the box." The anti-leader tells followers to "just do the basics; follow the rules and don't question my authority or the way things are done." This anti-leader said that the "most important thing is to complete the required forms," and not to worry about the quality of customer service. Any employee who questions the status quo (or her authority) is not only immediately reprimanded, but goes on the anti-leader's sh#& list. When my colleague was entrepreneurial and tried to improve a process, rather than being encouraged, the anti-leader considered it a case of "insubordination."

The fourth component of transformational leadership is individualized consideration. This is where the leader shows concern for followers, their individual needs and concerns, and works to develop them into better workers and budding leaders. You can imagine that this doesn't happen at all with the anti-leader. High on narcissism, this leader furthers her own agenda, at the expense of her workers.

So, it seems that there are bad leaders, and there are really bad leaders - anti-leaders. What is an anti-leader? The exact opposite of the very best.

Four Things You Can Do to Become a Better Leader

Ronald E. Riggio, Ph.D. — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:12:43 +0000

Research clearly shows that transformational leaders - leaders who are positive, inspiring, and who empower and develop followers - are better leaders. They are more valued by followers and have higher performing teams. By working on the 4 key components of transformational leadership, we can all become better leaders (and better persons, in general).

1. Be a Positive Role Model. Set a positive example and don't ask others to do what you yourself are unwilling to do. Alexander the Great was a successful military leader who was adored by his troops, because Alexander was out in front leading the charge into battle.

2. Be Optimistic and Inspirational. Have a "can do" attitude, and use that attitude to motivate. Let followers know your positive vision for the work team or company and inspire them to achieve it.

3. Challenge, but Support. Transformational leaders challenge followers to be creative, innovative, and to take risks, and this is how they together achieve extraordinary results. But, it is critical to support innovation and risk-taking. Don't blame. Instead, use setbacks as positive learning experiences.

4. Listen to Followers and Be Genuinely Concerned. Our research shows this may be most important. You can't be the type of leader who empowers and develops followers if you don't have genuine positive regard for your team members. You need to focus on their positive assets, be "in tune" with each member, and demonstrate that you care about each individual's performance and personal development.

OK, here's the "extra" factor: Be Honest and "Authentic" The truly exceptional leaders are straightforward, honest, and don't "play games." They don't use followers to achieve personal gains, but work together for mutually beneficial outcomes.

Being a great leader isn't easy, but we do know that these characteristics are the "recipe" for success.

The Folly of Economic Forecasting and Analysis: Are You Kidding?

Ronald E. Riggio, Ph.D. — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:45:17 +0000

OK. I can't take it anymore. I've been listening to the morning news and hearing the so-called financial analysis. There is good economic news. Housing sales were up a surprising 9 percent, and Amazon had record profits. But, the stock market is down. So what do the analysts say? Well, although housing is up, investors are concerned that this is all fueled by the new buyer incentives in the federal stimulus package. IF, this program doesn't continue, then, the analysts tell us, investors believe that housing sales will drop in the future and that's why the market is down.

The crazy thing is that this convoluted analysis is being shared by a lot of different news outlets - all of the various stations are repeating this same analysis. It is the very worst of "armchair quarterbacking after the fact." These so-called analysts know the outcome - the stock market is down - and they know some high-profile positive data (Amazon and housing purchases are up), and they try to explain it after-the-fact. As any psychology research methods student can tell you: This is bad methodology.

It is good that in the field of Economics, behavioral economics is the hot, growing area. That is because there is so much psychology that governs the world of finance and markets. People don't always behave rationally, as many economic models suggest. Psychologists study why and how people make systematic errors and have biases in their judgments and interpretations. And these economic analysts in the media are subject to one of these - explaining things after the fact. The folly of that is that any crazy explanation fits, and there is no way to determine if they are right or wrong.

How about predicting the future? Well that is certainly folly. There are now a number of economic specialists who say that they did indeed predict the economic crash, and they can prove that they acted beforehand. But here's the issue: the majority did not. There are simply too many variables, including many psychological variables, in operation that make it nearly impossible to predict the future. But, we will continue to hear these after-the-fact analyses, and these economic predictions. And, some of them will come true, because, after all, if you predict all possible outcomes, someone will be right. And, psychologists know that there is such a thing called the "self-fulfilling prophecy." If enough people are predicting an outcome, and broadcasting it widely in the media, people will act in a way that causes the prophecy to come true. How about a remedial course in Psychology for these analysts?

More Psychology of Good and Bad Leadership

Ronald E. Riggio, Ph.D. — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:14:59 +0000

In the last post, we were exploring tactics used by bad leaders, what I called "cheap psychological tricks," to control and subjugate followers. A variation on the abuse of requiring follower obedience to authority is when leaders call on the ultimate authority - God. Many despotic leaders throughout history have declared themselves gods, from the Egyptian pharaohs, to modern times, such as North Korea's Kim Il Sung.

Leaders of cults, such as Peoples Temple founder, Jim Jones, (leader of the Jonestown, Guyana mass suicide in 1978) declared themselves "god" so that followers who disobey the leader's orders are seen as blasphemers and can be punished or ostracized by other group members. Even leaders who claim that "God is on our side," are taking the dangerous path to bad leadership. Hitler, for example, said that he believed that his actions in Nazi Germany were "in accordance with the will of the almighty Creator." This is quite different than Abraham Lincoln's quote: "My concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side." So reliance on the ultimate authority - the Divine - is another cheap psychological trick or tactic that suggests bad leadership.

Tactic #3: The Dangers of Conformity and Social Proof. We know from a long history of conformity studies, such as Solomon Asch's "line studies" (participants will make wrong judgments of the length of lines if other participants make the wrong judgment), that too much conformity can be a dangerous thing. Leaders who capitalize on followers' conformity, or use followers' conformity as verification that they are right, are engaging in bad leadership.

Conformity, via the "bandwagon effect," can be dangerous. Followers are all too willing to "jump on the bandwagon" when other followers are seemingly lining up behind a leader's course of action. When we don't know what to do, we look to others for guidance (social comparison), and tend to conform to their actions and beliefs. Leaders who understand this try to give the illusion that everyone is behind the leader's decision. Thus, followers may not question that decision, but simply jump on the bandwagon.

As President John F. Kennedy said, "Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth." Martin Luther King, Jr., goes further: "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." This suggests the "antidote" to blind conformity is for followers to be empowered to believe that they can challenge the leader. Good leaders allow this.

Leadership Tactic #4: Fear Appeals and Providing Protection from Harm. The easiest way for a leader to gain the unquestioning blind allegiance of followers is to create a sense of fear, and to offer followers the leader's protection (in exchange for loyalty). I am sitting in an airport as I write this and I noticed that the security level is at the near-highest level of "orange" [I think it's been orange for many years]. It was odd how during election time, circa 2004, it went to "red" although I don't think things actually changed. But we know that despotic leaders from the ancient to the modern - Hitler, Saddam Hussein - have raised the specter of fear and then offered protection from the evil if followers would simply obey.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, during the Great Depression and World War II took the opposite tact. He acknowledged real dangers and threats, but called on Americans that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." "The point in history at which we stand is full of promise and danger. The world will either move forward toward unity and widely shared prosperity, or it will move apart." This is a good leadership approach to real fears - acknowledging the danger but providing an optimistic course of action to prevail. This is in sharp contrast to creating dangers and fear, and using those to solidify the leader's power. Dealing openly and honestly with followers is the good leadership strategy.

Religious leaders who promise "salvation" if followers will only obey the leader's every command, are also good examples of the use of this fear tactic.

So, we know quite a bit about bad leadership. Because of these basic psychological principles, bad leaders can fairly easily get the unempowered and unsuspecting followers to unquestioningly do their bidding. Good leaders avoid these cheap tricks. They empower followers; they are authentic and transparent about their motives and desires; and they welcome followers' input and allow followers to question their course of action. But this is not easy. Good leadership is hard. Bad leadership is easy (and all too common, unfortunately).

The Psychology of Good and Bad Leadership

Ronald E. Riggio, Ph.D. — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:30:32 +0000

Good leadership is hard work. In comparison, bad leadership is relatively easy. Bad leaders know or learn that they can easily take advantage of followers. People all too often fall prey to self-serving and exploitative leaders - leaders who know how to manipulate and use psychological tactics to gain power.

Let's look at some tactics - we'll call them "cheap psychological tricks"-- that bad leaders use to easily gain control over and dominate followers. Then, we'll see what good leaders do (or should do) to lead effectively.

First tactic: Using the in-group, out-group bias. This is sometimes called the "we-they feeling." It is very easy for bad leaders to use this cheap psychological trick to motivate followers and to build follower commitment and solidarity. "We are the good guys, they are the bad guys. We are right, they are wrong. They represent a threat to our way of life." In-group, out-group bias is the root of prejudice.

We see in-group, out-group bias in politics when leaders use opposing groups as targeted scapegoats. So an opposing nation becomes "the evil empire" or the "axis of evil." On the other side, we become "the Great Satan." Nothing will focus a constituency better than an apparent threat from an outside group, but this is why it is a cheap leadership trick: The animosity on both sides escalates. Differences are magnified, while similarities are ignored. We see this in international struggles, in our partisan politics, in rival street gangs, and in our communities where leaders allow the "other guys" to be vilified, primarily to solidify their followers' support.

The bad leader gains a short-term advantage: the loyalty and commitment of the followers, but there are long-term costs. It is extremely difficult when the two nations or groups need to work together in the future. And, when we demonize those in the out-group it can bring out the worst in human nature.

So, what should the good leader do? Focus on the commonalities - what are called the superordinate goals. These are goals that benefit both sides and are larger than the initial conflict. Taking the path of working for win-win solutions, or bringing together divided coalitions, is not easy, but it represents more effective leadership in the long run.

Second tactic: Demanding unquestioning obedience to authority. "Obey because I'm the boss." That's a statement indicative of bad leadership. Milgram's obedience studies demonstrated that people will show blind obedience to an authority, - even going so far as to provide painful and dangerous shocks to innocent victims.

When leaders demand absolute obedience that is a warning sign of bad leadership, and it's another cheap psychological trick. As children we are taught to obey authority, and some people too easily submit and will blindly follow.

It is the harder path (but the path of the good leader) to allow followers to question the leader's authority when it is warranted. A leader who does not consult with followers, who does not allow a sharing of power, and who demands unquestioning loyalty is not only a bad leader, but one who will likely be ineffective in the long run.

Check back for more of the cheap psychological tricks bad leaders use. If you are interested in really bad leaders, check out these earlier posts: How to spot a bad leader and Bosses from hell...

The Two Types of Leaders

Ronald E. Riggio, Ph.D. — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:00:26 +0000

There's an old joke, "There are two types of people: those who divide people into two types and those who don't." (OK, I guess it's only funny if you are a psychologist). But it is interesting that when it comes to thinking about people, in general, but our leaders/bosses, in particular, we have a tendency to divide them into two types: "good" or "bad," "effective" or "ineffective."

There is a cognitive "heuristic" (a heuristic is a sort of mental shortcut) that compels us to categorize things into dichotomies. This morning I was polled on whether I approved of the job President Obama was doing. The choices were approve or disapprove. No third or fourth option.

The history of research on leadership is full of these dichotomies. Leaders were classified into two types, based on their decision making styles, so you had theories that focused on "autocratic" vs. "democratic" leaders. Those who hold the decision making power and those who share it.

Or, Theory X and Theory Y leaders. Theory X leaders think of followers as basically unmotivated and rather unsophisticated so the leader needs to motivate and direct followers' activities. The Theory Y leader believes that followers are self-motivated and self-directed and so takes a more hands-off style.

Or, task-oriented and people-oriented leaders. Those who focus on getting the task done, and those who focus on the social process and team aspects of leading.

These dichotomies represent fairly old concepts of leaders. Newer approaches try to view leadership as being more complex - an interaction between different types of leaders, different types of followers, and the situational factors that interact with leadership (and followership).

Yet, people may still be compelled to think in dichotomies. In our own research on ethical leadership, we're finding that people tend to categorize leaders as "ethical" or "unethical," "good" or "bad," with little in between. We're finding it hard to tease out the subtle differences between leaders, for example, who are of substantially good character, but have certain flaws or have had a moral failure. People tend to either focus on the good, ignoring the bad, and tell us "this is a good leader." Or, they focus on the failure, and say "bad leader." When we first encountered this, we thought it was a flaw in our measurement. But now, we're fairly convinced that it's just how people think and categorize.

What are the implications for practicing leaders and managers? My friend, leadership scholar, Marty Chemers, emphasizes that image management is a key part of successful leadership. So, be a good leader (easy to say, huh?), but if you stumble, or blow it, own up to it. It's better to be seen as a basically good leader who has done something bad than to allow the failure to color your entire image and fall into the "bad" category. Of course, if you're bad, then that's a completely different situation altogether.