Leaders Emerge by Talking First and Most Often
Put some random people in a group, give them a task and soon enough a leader will emerge. What is it about that person that makes others grant them the honour of being in charge?
New insight comes from a study published in Personality and Social Psychology, which suggests that leaders emerge through a combination of their own outspoken behaviour, and how this outspoken behaviour is perceived by others.
In two studies Anderson and Kilduff (2009) from the University of California, Berkeley, looked at how dominant individuals in a group were perceived by others in the group. Perceived competence is important because, everything else being equal, it's very difficult to become a leader if everyone in the group thinks that person is a dunce, even if they are extremely dominant. But what Anderson and Kilduff's research showed is that there is a big gap between the actual competence of leaders and the way in which they are perceived by the others.
In the second of two studies Anderson and Kilduff had participants attempting a series of maths problems in competition with another group. The groups were videotaped and the behaviour of their members carefully examined. They found that dominant participants tended to offer more suggestions to the group, and that these individuals were perceived by the group, plus those observing the group, as the most competent.
Crucially, though, the study showed that not only did a leader's dominant behaviour of itself encourage others to see that person as competent, but this was true even though their suggestions to the group were no better, or even worse than others. In reality the leaders did not always make the best contribution to the task, but their voices were usually heard first and most often.
This study suggests leaders emerge through more subtle processes than the word 'dominance' might imply. Rather than brow-beating or bullying others into submission, leaders-in-waiting effectively signal their competence to the group by making greater verbal contributions to discussions. Others then assume that their greater contribution will mean their group will be more likely to succeed.
Outside of the laboratory, of course, money and power has more to do with who leads organisations like corporations or nations. In reality groups of people don't start on egalitarian terms and people don't always 'emerge' from groups of their peers on the basis of who shouts loudest and longest. But this study does tell us something useful about more informal, everyday groups similar to those studied in this research.
» See also: 7 Reasons Leaders Fail.
[Image credit: Nod Young]
Join 22301 readers
Interesting study. I'm not surprised that group members tend to attribute leadership qualities to the person who talks the most.
Having sat in on many a meeting, I'm curious this skill that some people have - some people are just good at finding the right moments in a group discussion to speak up. It seems to be a skill that involves knowing just when to speak up and also the ability to remain speaking even when others start to talk as well (there's a little "bullying" there - some people just don't allow themselves to be interrupted).
Michael
Outside the laboratory it ids different? On the contrary, as shown by Taleb in his books Fooled by Randomness and Black Swan, leaders success is often no better than random - the successful are in the main just lucky. Taleb is not the only one to make this observation. We make too much of a few historical heroes and forget all the rest.
I usually find myself talking a lot in group situations where I know a lot about the topic... and I usually let others talk when I don't know much. So maybe there's a correlation there?
@mbritt:
Great point about people not letting others interrupt them. I also noticed that a lot of the "leaders" or "high status people" tend to keep talking instead of letting others interrupt them.
Thank you for publishing this. We all know what makes a leader, but it's always better to hear it has been researched.
I chose this article fro translation to spanish on next week in my blog:
psicotraduccion.blogspot.com
Although the suggestions of the leaders were no better than any others, it could be that the more dominant people who rise to the leader position are better able to rally the group and get them to act cohesively. Or, of course, there may be no benefit for the group at all, with all the benefits of leadership going to the leaders themselves.
Agree with this informative post, but leaders just simply say something. Others possessed with more critical thinking actually have something to say.
The vexed question of how leaders emerge from a crowd is something that hints at the nature/nurture debate. Are leaders born, and not made? Can we learn how to become more assertive, dynamic, more charismatic? I doubt whether we can learn to be more charismatic -that depends on so many things,doesn't it? It seems to be affected by build, character, voice, gender, face, eyes + some magical ingredient that some have but many don't.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to write.
Don't forget: The meek shall inherit the Earth - if that's OK with you!