Do you admire an antagonistic leader? Researchers may have an explanation for that.
Researchers have discovered that those who view the world as a savage social jungle are more likely to admire leaders who are antagonistic.
“Reactions to a leader’s coercive behavior aren’t universal, but vary from observer to observer, depending on the observer’s worldview. In other words, every individual has an idiosyncratic understanding of how the world “works,” and these beliefs serve as lenses that shape how they perceive and evaluate antagonistic leaders. In particular, people who believe the world is a competitive, cutthroat jungle evaluate leaders who behave antagonistically as more competent and effective, compared to people who believe the world is cooperative,” Christine Nguyen, a doctoral student at Columbia Business School and co-author of the paper published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, told Theravive.
“By antagonistic leader, we mean someone who leads with coercive, harsh, intimidating behavior enacted in an attempt to advance some goal. Think of behaviors like being abrasive and blunt toward others, calling out and blaming people, or making threats and ultimatums. Antagonistic leaders deal forcefully with others to get their desired outcomes.”
Whilst some may admire an antagonistic style of leadership, those who view the world through a more cooperative and benign lens might view the same leader as clueless. It was that difference that inspired the research.
“We were struck by how differently people react to the same leadership behavior—especially when it’s particularly mean or forceful or disagreeable. We wondered why people might have such different views of how leaders should act. When people see a leader behaving aggressively, some people see the harshness as a sign of incompetence, while others see it as a case of savvy leadership. That tension shows up everywhere, from workplaces to politics to community life and even to families, and we wanted to understand what explains those divergent reactions,” she said.
“We suspected that divergence might be not only about the leaders, but also about the people evaluating them, and the lenses through which those people view the social world. That’s what led us to focus on worldview as a lens that might be driving these different evaluations.”
As part of the study, researchers conducted a series of experiments and surveys involving more than 2000 people.
In one experiment, participants rated the impact of certain behaviors that may be considered antagonistic (like making threats or ultimatums). In another, participants were asked to rate behavior in the past from real CEOs.
The researchers found that across all of their experiments, those who views the world as more competitive were more inclined to view antagonistic leaders and managers as competent. They also viewed those types of behaviors as having a more positive impact than collaborative behaviors.
“This research is important because it sheds light on how people’s general beliefs about the world shape their perceptions of leaders and their behavior. Across workplaces, politics, and communities, people’s experiences are influenced by those in leadership roles. Dissatisfaction often arises not only from what leaders do, but also from how their behavior is interpreted—whether they are seen as too antagonistic or too accommodating. To better understand why people support or reject certain leaders, and to help people find satisfaction in their work and lives, we need to consider not only leaders’ actions, but also the worldviews that shape how those actions are perceived,” Nguyen said.
With growing controversy surrounding the Trump administration, Nguyen argues her research helps explain some of the differences in opinion for polarizing leaders.
“There’s been growing debate about whether toughness and even “assholery” are essential for leadership, or whether empathy is a better path. Our research speaks to the deeper question behind this divide: Why do people disagree so strongly about whether antagonistic leaders, like President Trump, are effective? Why might some people see such harsh behavior as out of line, white others applaud it?”
“Our research suggests that the polarized reactions to antagonistic leaders can be traced in part back to differences in worldview. For people who see the world as a constant struggle for power, antagonism in a leader can look like strength and competence. For those who see the world as more cooperative, the same behavior can look reckless or ineffective. This helps explain why one leader can be adored by some and criticized by others for the very same behaviors. And antagonistic actors might persist and advance in leadership positions if their style resonates with supporters who believe in a competitive, cutthroat world, and who thus favor their heavy-handed leadership.”