Do ambitious people really make the best leaders? New study raises doubts
STANFORD, Calif. — Leadership is a critical component in every aspect of human activity, from business and education to government and healthcare. We often assume that those who aspire to leadership positions are the most qualified for the job. However, a new study challenges this assumption, revealing a striking disconnect between ambition and actual leadership effectiveness.
The study, conducted by researchers Shilaan Alzahawi, Emily S. Reit, and Francis J. Flynn from Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business, explores the relationship between ambition and leadership evaluations. Their findings suggest that while ambitious individuals are more likely to pursue and obtain leadership roles, they may not necessarily be more effective leaders than their less ambitious counterparts.
At the heart of this research is the concept of ambition, defined as a persistent striving for success, attainment, and accomplishment. Ambitious individuals are typically drawn to leadership positions, motivated by the promise of power, status, and financial rewards. However, the study, published in PNAS Nexus, raises an important question: Does this ambition translate into better leadership skills?
To investigate this question, the researchers conducted a large-scale study involving 472 executives enrolled in a leadership development program. These executives were evaluated on 10 leadership competencies by their peers, subordinates, managers, and themselves. In total, the study analyzed 3,830 ratings, providing a comprehensive view of each leader’s effectiveness from multiple perspectives.
Perhaps the most thought-provoking finding of the study is the significant discrepancy between how ambitious leaders view themselves and how others perceive them. Highly ambitious individuals consistently rated themselves as more effective leaders across various competencies. However, this positive self-assessment was not corroborated by the evaluations from their peers, subordinates, or managers.
For instance, ambitious leaders believed they were better at motivating others, managing collaborative work, and coaching and developing people. They also thought they had a stronger growth orientation and were more accountable for results. Yet, their colleagues and subordinates did not observe these superior abilities in practice.
This disconnect between self-perception and reality has significant implications for how we select and develop leaders. Many organizations rely on self-selection processes, where individuals actively choose to be considered for leadership roles. The assumption is that those who step forward are the most capable candidates. However, this study suggests that such an approach may be flawed, potentially promoting individuals based on their ambition rather than their actual leadership skills.
The researchers propose that ambitious individuals may be drawn to leadership roles for reasons unrelated to their aptitude. The allure of higher salaries, greater authority, and increased social status may drive them to pursue these positions, regardless of their actual leadership capabilities. To justify this pursuit, ambitious individuals may unconsciously inflate their self-perceptions of leadership effectiveness.
This phenomenon aligns with psychological concepts such as motivated reasoning and cognitive dissonance. Essentially, people tend to interpret information in a way that confirms their existing beliefs or desires. In this case, ambitious individuals may convince themselves of their superior leadership skills to justify their pursuit of higher positions.
Organizations and individuals may need to rethink their approach to leadership selection and development. Rather than relying solely on self-selection and ambitious individuals dominating candidate pools, companies might benefit from actively identifying and encouraging individuals who possess leadership potential but may lack the confidence or ambition to pursue such roles.
Moreover, the research highlights the importance of gathering diverse perspectives when evaluating leadership effectiveness. Relying solely on self-assessments or the opinions of a single group (e.g., only peers or only subordinates) may provide an incomplete or biased picture of a leader’s true capabilities.
This study urges us to look beyond ambition when selecting and developing leaders. By focusing on actual leadership skills rather than mere drive for power, we can cultivate leaders who are truly capable of guiding us through the challenges of the 21st century.
Paper Summary
Methodology
The researchers used a multi-wave, preregistered study design. They collected data from 472 executives enrolled in a leadership development program at a West Coast business school. Each executive completed a self-assessment of their ambition and leadership effectiveness.
Additionally, the researchers gathered leadership evaluations from each executive’s peers, subordinates, and managers through a 360-degree assessment process. This approach allowed for a comprehensive view of each leader’s effectiveness from multiple perspectives. The study used various statistical methods, including mixed-effects models and Bayesian analysis, to examine the relationship between ambition and leadership ratings across different rater roles.
Key Results
The study found a significant discrepancy between self-ratings and other ratings of leadership effectiveness for ambitious individuals. Highly ambitious leaders consistently rated themselves as more effective across various leadership competencies.
However, these positive self-assessments were not corroborated by ratings from peers, subordinates, or managers. For example, while ambitious leaders believed they were better at motivating others and managing collaborative work, their colleagues did not observe these superior abilities in practice. The results were consistent across different measures of ambition and leadership effectiveness.
Study Limitations
The study has several limitations. First, it relied on subjective ratings of leader effectiveness, which might not capture objective performance measures. Second, the sample consisted of executives from a single leadership development program, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings.
Third, the study did not examine potential cultural differences in the relationship between ambition and leadership effectiveness. Finally, the research did not explore how the relationship between ambition and leadership effectiveness might change over time or in different contexts.
Discussion & Takeaways
The study’s findings have important implications for leadership selection and development. They suggest that organizations should be cautious about relying solely on self-selection processes for identifying potential leaders. Instead, a more active approach to identifying leadership potential may be beneficial.
The research also highlights the importance of gathering diverse perspectives when evaluating leadership effectiveness. Organizations might benefit from developing interventions aimed at fostering feelings of ambition in high-potential employees who may lack confidence. The study also raises questions about the role of ambition in different cultural contexts and how it might interact with other personality traits or motivations.
Funding & Disclosures
The authors declared no specific funding for this research. The study was conducted while one of the authors, Em Reit, was affiliated with the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University. The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The research received approval from an institutional review board (Stanford IRB-29451), and informed consent was obtained from all participants.
link