Driving a More Prosperous Future
Breaking ceilings: Debate training promotes leadership emergence by increasing assertiveness.
Journal of Applied Psychology
To date, little is known about what interventions can help individuals attain leadership roles in organizations. To address this knowledge gap, we integrate insights from the communication and leadership literatures to test debate training as a novel intervention for leadership emergence. We propose that debate training can increase individuals’ leadership emergence by fostering assertiveness—“an adaptive style of communication in which individuals express their feelings and needs directly, while maintaining respect for others” (American Psychological Association, n.d.)—a valued leadership characteristic in U.S. organizations. Experiment 1 was a three-wave longitudinal field experiment at a Fortune 100 U.S. company. Individuals (N = 471) were randomly assigned to either receive a 9-week debate training or not. Eighteen months later, the treatment-group participants were more likely to have advanced in leadership level than the control-group participants, an effect mediated by assertiveness increase. In a sample twice as large (N = 975), Experiment 2 found that individuals who were randomly assigned to receive debate training (vs. nondebate training or no training) acted more assertively and had higher leadership emergence in a subsequent group activity. Results were consistent across self-rated, group-member-rated, and coder-rated assertiveness. Moderation analyses suggest that the effects of debate training were not significantly different for (a) U.S.- and foreign-born individuals, (b) men and women, or (c) different ethnic groups. Overall, our experiments suggest that debate training can help individuals attain leadership roles by developing their assertiveness.
Jackson Lu (MIT), Michelle Zhao (Washington University in St. Louis), Hui Liao (University of Maryland, Long Jiang Endowed Chair in Business), and Lu Zhang (MIT)
Seductive Language for Narcissists in Job Postings
Management Science
Prior research indicates that narcissistic executives engage in earnings management and other negative organizational behaviors, and many studies ponder why firms hire such individuals, especially into corporate accounting positions. Utilizing a selection of terms from real-world job postings that we characterize as either describing a “Rule-Bender” or “Rule-Follower" candidate, we first conduct several validation studies which reveal that these terms vary predictably across types of job postings, that people generally agree with our categorization of these terms, and that Rule-Benders are viewed as possessing worse managerial skills but a higher proclivity for unethical behavior. We then demonstrate that narcissistic job seekers are more attracted to job postings that describe the ideal candidate using Rule-Bender terms for both general positions (Experiment 1) and senior accounting positions (Experiment 2). Finally, we examine firm characteristics that might lead professional recruiters to incorporate Rule-Bender language into Chief Accounting Officer job postings and find that Rule-Bender terms are preferred for higher-growth, higher-innovation firms (Experiment 3), and when more aggressive reporting would benefit the firm (Experiment 4). Our results suggest that recruiters’ language choices can attract Rule-Bending narcissists to firms, perhaps even in unintended circumstances.
Jonathan Gay (University of Mississippi), Scott Jackson (University of South Carolina), Nick Seybert (University of Maryland)