How Do You Spot an Emerging Leader?

You've seen this happen:

1. Totally random people are placed in a group.

2. They are given a task.

3. Lo and behold, a leader will emerge.

At work it may result in the acquisition of an Ocean Liner factory in Nebraska; if it's Aunt Ethel and your family, you end up eating at the Amish Country Buffet instead of Casa del Gnocchi.

What is it that prompts people to grant a person leader status?

 Research and Emerging Leadership

A study published in Personality and Social Psychology suggests that leaders emerge through a combination of:

a. Their own outspoken behavior, and

b. how that outspoken behavior is perceived by the others.

Anderson and Kilduff (2009)  looked at how dominant individuals in a group were perceived by others in the group. Perceived competence is important because it's difficult to become a leader if everyone in the group thinks that person is a jerk regardless of how dominant (s)he is.

Here's the punchline: Anderson and Kilduff's research shows a big gap between the actual competence of leaders vs. how they are perceived by the others.

In the second of two studies the researchers had participants compete with another group on a series of math problems. The groups were videotaped. Then, member behavior was closely examined. Dominant participants were inclined to offer more suggestions to the group. The result? These people were perceived by the group and the observers  as the most competent.

Here is some very practical food for thought: The "leader's"  behavior encouraged others to see that person as competent even though their suggestions to the group were no better and sometimes worse than others. So the truth of the matter is that the leaders didn't always contribute the best but their voices were usually heard first and most often.

What to Take Away

Leaders emerge through processes that are somewhat more subtle than we realize. Rather than dominating others in the traditional sense of the word, emerging leaders show their "competence" by adding greater amounts of verbal contributions to discussions. Others assume that the greater contribution means the group will more likely succeed under that person's leadership.

The next time you are part of an unstructured group, be vigilant. (Or, if you want to be the leader, be talkative!).

Note: This is about emerging leadership in random or unstructured groups. It's very real and worth being aware of.

Tip: If you hear a loud, consistent voice that is taking you in a certain direction, start adding structure by asking, "What is our real goal and what criteria do we all have?" Then take time for everyone to weigh in. The same leader may remain, but you'll know the reason why and your decison will be deliberate and purposeful.

In organizations, most groups of people don't start on random terms that produce an emergent leader. But it's useful to understand more about informal, everyday groups that can impact many other aspects of our lives, from community groups to politics.
________________________________________________

Bonus: If you want to know just how crazy "intentional" leadership development can get, then check out Dan McCarthy's "Another Too Dumb To Be True Leadership Development Program." (Maybe yelling louder and longer isn't so bad after all!)

All Things Workplace is honored to be named in the Top 10 Blogs for Advancing Your Career. Sincere thanks to über-coach Marty Nemko and Blogs.com.

Comments

[Chris Young]

Great post, and interesting research, Steve! Unfortunately the perception of a competent leader can often lead to an ugly organizational reality if leadership decisions are not made responsibly - thanks for sharing!

I have featured your post in my weekly Rainmaker 'Fab Five' blog picks of the week (found here: http://www.maximizepossibility.com/employee_retention/2009/06/the-rainmaker-fab-five-blog-picks-of-the-week-1.html) to share your message with my readers.

Be well, Steve!

[Becky Robinson]

My personal experience certainly agrees with your research, Steve. I have read also, however, that a high percentage of upper level executives are introverts. Must be that these introverts overcome their preferences to assert themselves in order to emerge as leaders early in their careers. It is hard for me to speculate, though, since no one would mistake me for an introvert.

Thanks for another great post! And congratulations on your recent recognition.

[Steve Roesler]

Thanks, Chris. Always a treat to be featured on your special lineup!

[Steve Roesler]

Becky,

Well, I don't know about the "introvert" thing statistically with upper executives, or the definition/psychological assessment used to identify that preference. My personal experience is that there is a variety of personalities in the executive suite, including those who might be described as introverts.

But that is the point of the closing in the post. The research and the bulk of the post is about what happens in unstructured, informal groups when it comes to a leader emerging and what that person does to be perceived as a "leader". In fact, the person may do nothing consciously at all; it's the group that attaches leadership characteristics as a result of the person's outspoken behavior.

In formal organizations moves up the hierarchy are more likely to be the result of specific performance, seniority, organizational politics, and other dynamics.

[Wally Bock]

Great post, Steve. The point about how groups attribute competency based on "outspoken" behavior is important. It gives us an idea of how easy it is to suggest that someone is a leader when all they are is loud.

But there are two problems with these studies. The first is that, in business, leaders are often not expected to have the highest task competency. In theory, at least, the leader is supposed to be the one who is able and willing to suggest direction for the group. In business those are often different than the task-specific knowledge. In the experimental setting, they're not.

There's another big problem with all these studies. They look at groups who are thrown together for a short period. Prior knowledge of each other is not necessarily part of their leadership equation.

In most business settings where the group chooses a leader, either in general or for a project, the group knows quite a bit about each member. They're usually quite capable of culling the leaders from the loudmouths.

[Steve Roesler]

Wally,

Well, there seems to be some misunderstanding about the real point(s) of this post; your comment addresses both.

This is all about watching how leadership "emerges" in informal groups. The end of the post was supposed to be the caveat about leadership in formal, structured organizations.

It looks like I didn't make the distinction clear enough.