How Do Leaders And Influencers Emerge? (Psychology)

New research by UTS economist Associate Professor David Goldbaum suggests influential leaders emerge from an evolutionary social process that has less to do with skills and talent than we might think.

We think of leaders and influencers as imbued with special skills and qualities – either innate or hard-won merit – that propels them to success, high status and financial rewards. Self-help books on how to build leadership skills abound. 

However, new research that models the evolution of social networks suggests it is less about individual skills and talents, and more about a dynamic self-reinforcing social process – one that is driven by our instinct to conform to those around us, as well as to seek influence. 

Computer modelling by economist Associate Professor David Goldbaum from UTS Business School reveals that even when everyone in a group has exactly the same attributes, a leader will still emerge from the process. The study, The origins of influence, was recently published in the journal Economic Modelling. 

“The findings suggest our view of leadership is over-glorified. It invites a rethink of the notion that a person who gains a leadership position through a competitive process is necessarily more worthy. This is especially so in subjective fields such as art, music, politics or fashion,” said Associate Professor Goldbaum. 

“A leader is someone who has followers – something they may or may not directly control. My aim was to build a model that stripped away any unique attributes, to see if a leader will still emerge,” he said.

“Those who are interested in becoming leaders and influencers would do better to understand the landscape of the popularity game they are playing, than to focus on individual traits.”

— Associate Professor David Goldbaum

---

To do the analysis Associate Professor Goldbaum developed a computer simulation populated with identical ‘agents’ all employing the same rules of behaviour to govern their decisions.

They could either act autonomously or imitate one another. They could not campaign or persuade others but were rewarded for doing what is popular and they received a premium for being ahead of the crowd. 

Associate Professor Goldbaum let the simulation run thousands of times to see what would happen. In the beginning the actions were random and uncoordinated, but over time the agents, responding to the payoffs, learned to coordinate and began to organise, and a leader emerged from the process. 

While the model is an extreme – in the real world there are numerous negotiations going on – it does reveal that it can be less important who the leader is, than the fact that the group accepts that one person will come out ahead and organises behind them. 

“How you get to be the eventual leader is that you slowly build up influence, and as you build up influence, others see that popularity and decide to join the group. It’s a self-reinforcing process – a snowball effect,” said Associate Professor Goldbaum. 

Influencers benefit from a system that rewards early success in gaining followers. Image: Pixabay

“We think of leaders as winners – as though there was a tournament, and they were the best. The simulation is tournament like – because somebody emerges as a leader – but they have not done anything special. They just benefit from a system that rewards early success in gaining followers. 

“Those who are interested in becoming leaders and influencers would do better to understand the landscape of the popularity game they are playing, than to focus on individual traits,” he said.

The findings also help explain why leaders emerge in a group. Our desire to conform and follow allows society to function more smoothly and predictably – for example the roads would be chaos if everyone created their own rules. And a leader aids this process by coordinating everyone. 

And while the whole population benefits from the emergence of a leader, next to the leader, it is the early followers that benefit the most. Through their actions, early followers influence the social evolution, which changes the course of what happens. 

For example, a music promoter’s early backing of a new band helps the band gain more fans, bringing greater financial success to both. Or an art collector acquiring avant-garde art raises the artist’s profile such that museums and galleries take notice, which increases the value of the art. 

An art gallery that aquires avant-garde art raises the artist’s profile. Image: Pixabay

Adjusting the model to allow for individual differences shows that it is possible to have some influence on the outcome. An agent advantaged with a larger social network than others at the start has a greater chance of becoming a leader, but there is no guarantee of success. Sometimes an agent with fewer connections will still emerge a leader. 

“The model demonstrates that while skill, knowledge, or leadership qualities are possible factors in becoming a leader, just because someone is a leader doesn’t mean they possess those qualities. You can become an accidental guru.” 

Featured image credit: Pixabay

---

Provided by UTS

Narcissists Are Drawn To Leadership Theories (Psychology)

The more narcissistic the leader, the higher their interest in leadership theories, according to University of Queensland research.

©University of Queensland

UQ School of Psychology researchers examined the extent to which a leader’s narcissism was associated with their endorsement of, and motivation to learn about, leadership theories.

Dr Nik Steffens said the findings build on previous research showing leadership was an activity that appeals to, and boosts, people’s inflated sense of self.

“The more narcissistic individuals are, the more they endorse various theories of leadership and the more they want to learn about them,” Dr Steffens said.

“This in turn suggests that what motivates some people to engage with leadership theory is more a personal concern for the self than a social concern for the greater good.

“Our findings chime with an emerging body of work which suggests that narcissists desire to be the centre of attention and that one way in which they are able to feed this ambition is by striving for positions of responsibility and power over others.

“It would appear that those who have self-serving tendencies not only have an elevated motivation to lead and exert their influence but are also those who are most keen to learn about contemporary theories of leadership.”

Professor Alex Haslam said while a lot had been written about the toxic effects of narcissistic leaders, there had been less reflection on the leadership theories that support and fuel their self-absorption.

“Theories of leadership tend to celebrate what makes individuals superior to others and propose that it is this superiority that allows organisations and societies to flourish,” Professor Haslam said.

“One consequence of this is that most prevailing leadership theories appeal directly to leaders’ narcissism.

“In a time where there are low levels of public trust in corporate and political leaders this is an arresting finding, as it suggests that rather than leadership and leadership theory being the solution to our current woes, they may actually be their cause.

“If the people who are drawn to the study of leadership are primarily interested in looking after themselves, we should not be surprised if they use their learning to do precisely this.”

The research is published in American Psychologist (doi.org/10.1037/amp0000738).

Provided by University Of Queensland

How Initiatives Empowering Employees Can Backfire? (Psychology)

Strategies meant to motivate people in the workplace may have unintended consequences — depending on who’s in charge. Recent research from Michigan State University and Ohio State University shows that empowerment initiatives aren’t necessarily the answer for business leaders hoping to motivate their employees.

In recent decades, companies have increasingly implemented various forms of empowerment initiatives that assume empowered leaders will translate into empowered workers, the researchers said. ©Royalty-free via RawPixel.

“People tend to think of empowerment in uniformly positive ways,” said Nicholas Hays, study co-author and associate professor of management in MSU’s Eli Broad College of Business. “After all, humans crave independence and control so giving it to them at work should be a good thing. However, as people feel increasingly autonomous, they can also become unmoored from others’ needs, expectations and social norms.”

Hays explained that, in recent decades, companies have increasingly implemented various forms of empowerment initiatives that assume empowered leaders will translate into empowered workers.

The paper — published in Journal of Applied Psychology — found that, when properly implemented, empowerment initiatives can lead to heightened motivation, productivity and creativity. However, whether these initiatives are effective at all levels of the organization depends on the management style of the person implementing them.

Hays – along with Broad College of Business colleague, Russell E. Johnson, MSU Foundation Professor of management, and Hun Whee Lee, assistant professor of management at Ohio State University and lead author of the study — found that superiors who value being respected will respond to empowerment initiatives by, in turn, empowering their workers. But, superiors who value being in charge will, somewhat ironically, respond to empowerment initiatives by closely controlling, dominating and managing their employees.

The researchers conducted three separate studies measuring outcomes of empowerment initiatives that considered personality trait data and leader behavior.

“We found that leaders who really care about being respected by their subordinates tend to react to empowerment initiatives by ‘paying it forward’ with certain behaviors. This could include things like allowing subordinates to set their own goals or decide how to accomplish tasks,” Lee said. “In contrast, leaders who prefer to be in control and tell others what to do tend to react to these initiatives by doubling down on their desire for control. This is when we see things like micromanaging or setting specific goals for subordinates.”

If an employee is uncomfortable with a superior’s leadership style, the researchers say it may be beneficial to have a candid conversation between worker and boss.

“Many leaders are receptive to feedback and want to provide employees what they need to succeed at work,” Hays said. “If that doesn’t work, looking for different groups to join – either within an organization and with a different supervisor or even by changing organizations altogether – is sometimes the best option.”

And in the unprecedented workplace environment of 2020, Hays also offered insight into what he believes the paper’s findings may indicate for employees in real time.

“To the extent that leaders prioritize dominance and being in charge, they may go out of their way to micromanage employees by, for example, monitoring their online status and requesting frequent check-ins,” Hays said. “I wouldn’t necessarily characterize this as abusing an empowerment initiative, but certainly could rub employees the wrong way.”

References: Lee, H. W., Hays, N. A., & Johnson, R. E. (2020). To thine own (empowered) self be true: Aligning social hierarchy motivation and leader behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000813 link: https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fapl0000813

Provided by University Of Michigan

What Is Groupthink, And How Can Leaders Avoid It? (Psychology)

Groupthink is the term used when decision-making groups make hasty and premature decisions without doing the critical evaluation work required for making well-thought-out and good decisions. Groupthink was first studied by social psychologist, Irving Janis. He wondered how smart decision makers, such as U.S. presidential administrations, could make bad decisions that led to catastrophes, such as John F. Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs fiasco, Richard Nixon’s Watergate decision, and the like.

©gettyimages

What Janis noticed was that in these groups, members seemed to suspend their critical judgment and came to a premature decision in an effort for the group to try to “stay together” and maintain group cohesiveness. Often, in groupthink situations, the preferences of the leader are simply endorsed by the group members (this is the problem that occurs when a top-level leader, such as a U.S. president is surrounded by advisers who only want to please and endorse the president — the whole idea of the “yes” person).

Why and when does this groupthink occur?

Janis argues that groupthink happens in highly cohesive teams of decisionmakers who have a strong belief in their own (and the leader’s) abilities – what he called the illusion of invulnerability. High degrees of insulation from opposing viewpoints, such as making decisions “behind closed doors,” facilitates groupthink. The shared group norm of trying to stay together and avoid conflict overrides the necessary critical decision-making process of evaluating alternative courses of action. A leader who attacks advisers who disagree with the leader can also foster groupthink and bad decision making.

Once the premature (and faulty) decision is about to be made, group dynamics ensure that opposing views are suppressed (what Janis calls direct conformity pressure), and people with different views may even be ridiculed. In the end, the group can make a disastrous decision.

How can a leader prevent groupthink? Here are 4 ways:

1. Include group members who have diverse points of view. This prevents like-minded thinking and is one of the virtues of group member diversity and inclusion. You may also bring in expert outsiders who offer differing viewpoints and alternative strategies.
2. Ask members to play “devil’s advocates.” Appoint some individuals in the decision-making group to conduct a critical evaluation of any potential decision — asking the tough questions (“What if we…?”).
3. Remove time constraints. If possible, don’t put a time limit on the decision-making process. Allow members time to discuss all possible alternatives and courses of action.
4. Minimize your leader influence on the decision. Groupthink can occur if the group is trying too hard to support the leader and their preferred course of action. Allowing the group to arrive at a decision without the leader present is a good strategy. Or, the leader might serve more as a facilitator in the process, rather than as a member of the decision-making team—delegating it.

Of course not all bad decisions are caused by groupthink, but understanding how to best manage group decision making is a key leadership skill.

References: (1) Janis, I.L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (2) Riggio, R.E. (2020). Daily Leadership Development: 365 Steps to Becoming a Better Leader. Barnes & Noble Press.

This article is republished here from Psychology Today Under common creative licenses.

Is There a Biological Basis for Charismatic Leadership? (Psychology)

Research helps explain the special bond we form with charismatic leaders.

Charismatic leaders, past and present, have had tremendous effects on the fortunes and fates of individuals and societies across the world. Despite the outstanding impact of charismatic influence, we know very little about its origins. Could there be a connection between attachment and bonding and the impact leaders have on followers at the neurophysiological level?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Prof. Yair Berson and Gordon in their paper, wished to explore the biological circuits that may be at the core of the influence of charismatic leaders. They argued that the powerful relationship that followers form with charismatic leaders, shown to resemble basic human attachment bonds, has biological underpinnings.

Specifically, they claimed that oxytocin, a neuropeptide and hormone, extensively implicated in mammalian attachment bonds, regulates charismatic influence in groups. They chose to focus on oxytocin because they believed theory pointed them to the fact that followers form a strong bond with a charismatic leader, which can resemble a parent-child attachment. Oxytocin plays a major role in those early relationships.

In a double-blind placebo-controlled study, they administered oxytocin to participants in a group task, led by a confederate trained to exhibit charismatic rhetoric. They discovered that oxytocin enhanced positive facial expressions when the confederate used charisma rhetoric, increased mimicry of leaders’ gestures, and facilitated the association between perceived charisma and trust in group members.

They concluded that “despite being preliminary, our work provides a new, biological angle to a phenomenon that spurred interest among scholars across disciplines. Our findings address the role of oxytocin in illuminating the path through which effective leaders facilitate
emotional and behavioral contagion among group members.”

References: Gordon, I., & Berson, Y. (2018). Oxytocin modulates charismatic influence in groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(1), 132–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000375