While entertaining, pop-science business books often make sweeping generalisations based on anecdotal experiences or observations. The typical formula boils down to the logic of: “This group of rich and successful people did ___, so you should do the same”.
While there isn’t anything wrong with case studies, it often feels like business books start with an agenda, then cherry-pick evidence in support of it. When really it should be the other way around: evidence first, agenda second.
In the spirit of an evidence first approach, Hogan & Kaiser (2005) published a paper titled “What We Know About Leadership”. In their paper they review the scientific literature on leadership to make an empirically grounded claims about the consequences of leadership and offer a straightforward summary of the characteristics of good and bad leaders.
I really like this paper, and despite its age, I believe that the claims about leadership hold water today. So, I am writing this post to summarise the main points of their article, providing readers – and perhaps more so myself – a condensed version that can be read in just six minutes.
Everything good about this blog post comes from Hogan & Kaiser’s paper, and everything bad is entirely my own.
Goal of Leadership
Leadership is defined as the ability to build and maintain effective teams. It follows that leadership should be evaluated on a team’s performance over time.
Grounded in this definition is the assumption that people are self-interested and tend to pursue short-term personal interests. Therefore, the goal of leadership is to convince people to put aside their selfish pursuits to come together around a common goal.
With these definitions in place, it begs the question: what exactly is an effective team? Hogan & Kaiser (2005) outline five components of an effective team in the context of organisations:
- Talented Personnel: A talented team will outperform an untalented one. Talented personnel are identified through effective selection and hiring methods.
- Motivated Personnel: A motivated team will outperform a demoralised one. The level of motivation in a team or organisation is directly linked to the performance of management. In fact, Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002) reviewed the literature on employee satisfaction and showed that job satisfaction essentially means satisfaction with supervisors.
- Talented Management Team: If it wasn’t already obvious, good leadership is hugely consequential. CEOs account for about 14% of the variance in a firm’s performance (Joyce, et al., 2003). To put this in perspective, the industry sector of a firm accounts for 19% of the variance.
- Effective Strategy for Outperforming the Competition: This relies on systematic market research and a deep understanding of industry trends.
- Monitoring Systems: Having in place systems that enable senior leaders to track and adjust the above four components.
Characteristics of Bad Leaders
While the literature on what makes a good leader is fragmented and controversial, there is near-universal consensus on what makes a bad leader. What’s more, bad leaders are prevalent everywhere; between 65% and 75% of employees in any given organisation report that the worst aspect of their job is their immediate boss.
Hogan & Kaiser (2005) provide a taxonomy of personality traits typically associated with managerial incompetence:
Borderline
Displays outbursts and is emotionally volatile. These individuals can be energetic and enthusiastic but are also moody, intense and are easily annoyed by people and projects.
Avoidant
Reluctant to take risks due to fear of criticism. While making few mistakes can be a short-term strength, indecisiveness and risk aversion are not hallmarks of good leadership.
Paranoid
Cynical and mistrustful. Such individuals often have insights into organisational politics but are also argumentative and combative.
Schizoid
Aloof and uncommunicative. These people can be tough and resolute under pressure but are often insensitive to others’ feelings or morale issues.
Passive-aggressive
Displaying passive-aggressive behaviour, these individuals appear overtly cooperative but privately procrastinate and harbour resentment.
Narcissistic
Exhibit grandiosity and entitlement. They may seem courageous, confident, or charismatic, but their excessive self-confidence often prevents them from admitting or learning from mistakes.
Antisocial/psychopathic
Excessively takes risks and tests limits. While this can sometimes be a strength, such leaders can also be cunning, exploitative and manipulative.
Histrionic
Characterised by expressive, animated and dramatic tendencies. These individuals seek attention, are impulsive and manage by crisis.
Schizotypal
Acts and thinks in creative but sometimes odd or eccentric ways. They engage in excessive visionary, outside-the-box thinking in erratic and sometimes fanciful ways.
Obsessive–compulsive
Meticulous and precise, these individuals are hard-working and self-sacrificing but often over controlling, rigid or micromanaging.
Dependent
Conforms and is overly eager to please superiors, leading to indecision.
Characteristics of Good Leaders
Hogan & Kaiser (2005) summarise the characteristics of good leaders in terms of four “virtues”: integrity, decisiveness, competence and vision. In addition to the four virtues, the authors also list an additional two traits: humility and persistence.
Integrity
Credibility as a leader is crucially linked to integrity, which involves keeping your word, fulfilling promises, treating everyone fairly and not exploiting your position. The tacit question asked of a potential leader is “can we trust you not to abuse the privilege of authority?” The answer for which lies in the leader’s demonstrated character and reliability.
Decisiveness
In times of crisis and uncertainty, the most effective leaders make prompt decisions. However, decisiveness is also crucial under normal conditions. Managers are involved in decision-making all day long, and the quality of their decisions accumulate over time.
Competence
Good leaders are a contributing resource for their teams. Expertise is essential for gaining legitimacy and respect from the team. While I do not think leaders need to be the superior in every way, they should at least be distinguished in a few key areas relevant to their organisation’s industry sector.
Hogan & Kaiser identify four domains of organisational competence that leaders should excel in:
- Intrapersonal: This relates to a leader’s ability to control emotions and behaviour, including courage, ambition, perseverance and an internalised standard of performance.
- Interpersonal: This involves social skills, such as the talent for building and maintaining relationships, including listening, negotiating and approachability.
- Business: This encompasses technical knowledge and abilities related to business matters, such as budgeting, coordination, planning and functional/technical skills.
- Leadership: Finally, this domain is characterised by influence and team-building skills, including strategic hiring and staffing, as well as the ability to motivate and inspire others.
Vision
Effective leaders excel at articulating a compelling vision, which is crucial for conveying the purpose, meaning and significance of the group’s efforts. This ability is fundamental for motivating team members and fostering a sense of direction and commitment. Additionally, a clear vision enhances team performance by delineating roles, setting goals and providing a clear path forward.
Humility & Persistence
Finally, humility and persistence stand apart from the others, and originate from Collins’ (2001) book Good to Great. The book empirically demonstrates that the CEOs of 11 Fortune 500 companies, which performed above the market average for over 15 years, shared two key traits: humility and persistence. These leaders were modest and humble, rather than self-dramatising or self-promoting, and they displayed extraordinary persistence.
Proudly powered by WordPress