The importance and evolution of leadership

Abraham P. Buunk

Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences&

University of Groningen

What am I doing here?

The Economist Magazine (2006, p.5) Organizations do not know how to lead

people because… “….human resources as a discipline has not

achieved anything like the level of sophistication of, say, finance”

Astronomists don’t know how to move the stars

The business and political world seems obsessed with leadership leadership everywhere important issue Google: 11.800.000 hits thousands of ‘models’ with an endearing

simplicity and superficiality

The business and political world seems obsessed with leadership leadership important issue Google: 11.800.000 hits thousands of ‘models’ thousands of consulting agencies

The business and political world seems obsessed with leadership leadership important issue Google: 11.800.000 hits thousands of ‘models’ thousands of consulting agencies direct advices

The business and political world seems obsessed with leadership leadership important issue Google: 11.800.000 hits thousands of ‘models’ thousands of consulting agencies but also psychologists: thousands of scientific

articles psychology of leadership at least 15 forms of leadership

Why a preoccupation with leadership?

Good leadership has strong effects on productivity:

In trawlers, skipper accounts for 35-49% of catch

CEO’s account for about 14% of the variance in a firm’s financial results

The Bloom & Van Reenen study

- 700 manufacturing firms in US and Europe

- company performance: - productivity, profitability,

sales growth, survival rates

- about 50% explained by four characteristics of leadership

1. Operations (e.g., process improvement, internal communication)

2. Targets (e.g., rigor and transparency of goals)

3. Monitoring (e.g., tracking and following up on individual performance)

4. Incentives (links between pay and performance)

Why should people want to lead?

Invest large amounts of time Take responsibility for group’s outcomes Subordinates rarely happy Put personal security at risk

Why should people want to follow?

Work for someone else’s income and prestige Dependent on someone else Lack of attention and appreciation Take risks for the benefit of someone else

Evolutionary perspective

Humans as animals How desires for leadership and followership

are product of evolution

Why would someone want to be a dominant or a submissive?

Two types of causes

1. proximate: strong desire for power and achievement vs. lack of ambition and lazyness

2. ultimate: dominance and submission were adaptive in evolutionary past

Human behavior as result of evolution

But why a leader?The importance of status 1999: Columbine high school

shootings, Colorado 13 people killed ‘This is for all the people who made

fun of us all these years’ 2003: Oaklyn, New Jersey: plans

to do the same Leader in Oaklyn: speech

impediment, bow legged and stooped gait, strange clothes

‘He was an easy target, but never lashed out. He just took it’… ‘Everybody picked on him”

The male motivation to attain status and dominance Leaders overwhelming men Geert Hofstede: around the

world men more interested in power, leadership and self-realization

Linked to testosteron, motivates competition for status

Does not mean at all that men are better leaders

The ultimate cause of the male drive for status and dominance:Sexual selection and parental investment theory Reproductive success of males limited by access to mates Males therefore more competitive and more aggressive than females to gain access to sexually receptive females, and to prevent access of other males to femalesFor females generally off-spring requires much more investment

than for males, reproductive success limited by access to resources Therefore more choosy in partner choice than males: status, dominance, good genes Among human males, long evolutionary history and ongoing evolution rooted in competition over these characteristics Men successful in this competition had more offspring

Dominance and status enhanced reproductive succes Yanomanö of Amazone men

who killed other men have more wives and children

Kipsigis of Kenia men with more acres have more reproductive succes

Dzengis Khan: 16 million male descendants

Laura Betzig: six early civilizations: the higher the status, the more wives

Even regulated by law: Inca’s: “principal persons”: 50 women leaders of vassal nations: 30

women heads of provinces more than

100.000 people: 20 women governors of at least 100

people: 8 women

Is there still a link between status and reproductive success among men and not among women?

Reproductive success and income

Result of evolution: hormonal effects of winning and loosing

Higher status accompanied by higher androgen and serotonin levels ‘good feeling’

Lower status accompanied by elevated cortisol levels, greater physiological stress changes during conflict

Following competitive games (even chess!) male winners (and supporters!) show elevation of testosteron

Winning an election: testosteron level increases Importance of winning

Sex differences

Males used to functioning in hierarchies, more direct ways of dominating and dealing with rivals, accept being subordinate, Females less used to functioning in hierarchies, more indirect ways, such as spreading rumors, excluding, ignoring, and isolating rivals, preventing other females from being successful

Queen Bee effect: women block careers of other women

Naomi Ellemers and colleagues

(University of Leiden,

The Netherlands)

How male supervisors judge their subordinates: fair and egalitarian

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

5,5

6

Male supervisors

Male subordinates

Female subordinates

How female supervisors judge their subordinates: biased against their own sex

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

5,5

6

Female supervisors

Male subordinates

Female subordinates

Questions and comments!

The Russian Doll Model: layers of ways of attaining dominance

Major evolved strategies for achieving dominance

1. Direct fights, physical strength

Bigger animals more dominant in many species, smaller animals prevent getting involved in fight

The inner Russian Doll (1): tendency to fight physically is still non-verbally manifest

The inner Russian doll (2): unconscious perception of physical dominance of rivals: subliminal priming

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Subliminal exposureto physicallydominant

Subliminal exposureto physicallynon-dominant

rivalry

Rivalry in men

The inner Russian doll (3): height still matters a lot

Sarkozy: ‘Frankly, Dom, what do I still lack to win the elections in 2007?Dom: ‘Oh …not that much. At its most just a 20 centimeters’

The importance of height in organizationsTaller men … are more persuasive held in higher esteem more likely to emerge as leader perform better earn more: 15 cm equals € 166.000,- over 30 years have higher positions in organizations are more liked by women have more reproductive success

Rivalry among women

Height for women less positive- Related to depression- Women of medium height higher fertility

and reproductive success- Men don’t like women taller than they

are (except Sarkozy)- Smaller women advantage

Test for intrasexual rivalry with questions like‘When I go out, I can't stand it when men pay

more attention to a friend of mine than to me’‘I just don’t like very ambitious women’‘I can't stand it when I meet another woman

who has accomplished more in her life than I have’

‘I wouldn't hire a highly competent woman as a colleague’

Intrasexual rivalry among females

1

2

3

4

5

6

152 160 168 176 184

Height (cm)

Jeal

ousy

Why would individuals be submissive?Submission to physically stronger animales is functional Prevent attacks, being killed,

expelled from group Benefit from knowledge

dominant animal ‘Wait one’s chances’: Prepare

for future dominance

Major evolved strategies for achieving dominance

1. Direct fights, physical strength

2. Social skills: machiavellianism

Social brain hypothesis:Maintaining and manipulating relationships

Why around 150 people invited?

Why not 75? Or 350? No coincidence!

Evolution human brain very fast 2.5 millions of years ago

Not at all parallel to increase of complexity of technology

Not at all parallel to increase of complexity of environment

Robin Dunbar (University of Oxford): being able to function in large groups

1 100.1

1

10

100

Neocortex Ratio

Mean group size of primates

150 - the magic number

number of people we can know and interact with on a personal basis

Around 150 found everywhere

- clans of hunter gatherers - military units- business organizations - church congregations (200 maximum of

coherent, well-integrated congregation)- size of personal networks

Knowing personally about 1000 people

Functioning in groups, and especially being and becoming dominant, requires intelligence

Why does functioning in large groups require intelligence?

Animals move of their own volition and have feelings and thoughts

To keep track of that requires enormous computational capacity

•Remembering behavior of group members, who’s to trust•Recognizing cheaters and free-riders•Floating social norms without being caught•Manipulating others for one’s own goals

Leaders not necessarily nicer, often manipulators Better liars Lack of empathy Narcissistic tendency

Power and perspective taking

Adam Galinsky (Kellogg School of Management):

Power diminishes perspective taking:Powerful people are less

likely to adopt another person’s perspective

The E test

Draw an

Eon your forehead

Power and taking another person’s visual perspective

Powerful: Self-oriented

Powerless: Other-oriented

Submission functional

‘bide your time’ voids at the top:

emergence of new dominants

fish species: when dominant male dead, other males more testosterone, competitive fights

The functionality of submission

Margaret Tatcher who ‘bit her tongue’ -

held back criticism until criticism with Ted Heath grew

then acted by not being

submissive, one may forever ruin one’s chances

Promotion tips as submissive strategies Leonard Sayles (1993): based on years of study

of managers, ‘promotion tips’ Avoid confrontation Withhold suggestions Do not ask your boss to champion unpopular

opinions Always agree with your boss Concentrate on presentation skills and looking

good in meetings with superiors Demonstrate an intense desire for career

advancement and beat your peers Try to find your next promotion because rapid

advancement looks good

Career success - attaining status and dominance - is not the same as succesful leadership

Career success: socializing, politicking, and networking: ‘upward ingratiation’

Effective team leadership: communicating, motivating, managing conflicts, training of subordinates:

‘downward affiliation”

Commitment to one’s career is not the same as commitment to the organization No relation between career success and team performance

Comments and questions!

Major evolved strategies for achieving dominance1. Direct fights, physical strength2. Social skills: machiavellianism3. Altruism and heroism

The next doll: the altruistic doll

Competition in social skills in groups lead to evolution of additional strategy of attaining dominance: Altruistic behavior

Altruistic leadership

Gaining status and prestige through:

- Interfering impartially in conflicts

- Being fair and generous to followers

- Showing altruism- Self-sacrifice for sake of

the group

Altruism pays off: the self-sacrifcing leader

John McCain 1967 prisoner of war (pow)

in Vietnam for more than five years

very badly treated, tortured many times

refused to be released as a special favor, if fellow pow’s who were captured earlier were also not released

benefits from this 40 years later

The effectiveness of altruistic leaders

Study of Fortune 1000: selection of companies that first performed below business sector average for 15 years, and than above average for 15 years

Only 11 companies fit profile

In each case after new CEO took over

Two characteristics of these CEO’s

Characteristics of most effective CEO’s

1. Modest and humble

2. Extraordinarily persistent in pursuit of organizational goals

What have these two men in common?

Charismatic leadership

Articulating vision and mission Inducing identification, loyalty, faith, respect,

inspiration, commitment and devotion to the leader

Hitler: the arrogant non-altruist Mandela: the humble altruist Study among Fortune 500 firms: leader

charisma predicted his level of pay, but not firm performance

Major strategies for achieving dominance1. Direct fights, physical strength

2. Social skills: machiavellianism

3. Altruism and heroism

4. Showing a Peacock’s tail

The human peacock tail: producing art

The human peacock tail: beautiful and expensive goods

Importance of physical attractiveness

Physically attractive people ….

Are hired more likely Are promoted more likely Are evaluated more positively in terms of their

performance But …..

Crown Princess effect: women block careers particularly of attractive women

Experiment among students Job description: student assistant working on

data entry and photocopying, at the same project as oneself

Personality description, e.g., nice, extravert, pleasant, outgoing personality

‘How likely would you hire this person?’

Men and women prefer female candidates

6

6,2

6,4

6,6

6,8

7

7,2

7,4

7,6

7,8

Men Women

Male candidate

Femalecandidate

Both men and women prefer attractive candidates of the opposite sex

2,5

2,7

2,9

3,1

3,3

3,5

3,7

3,9

4,1

Men Women

AttractivecandidateUnattractivecandidate

But for same sex candidates the opposite:men prefer attractive male candidates, and women unattractive female candidates

2,5

2,7

2,9

3,1

3,3

3,5

3,7

3,9

4,1

Men Women

AttractivecandidateUnattractivecandidate

A guideline

‘Bright leaders should be directive and tell group members what to do; the relatively less bright should be participative and listen (Fiedler & House, 1988, p. 76).

Make your own choice!

Questions and comments?