While some people applaud leaders who seem harsh, domineering, or even mean-spirited, others are appalled by the very same behavior.
A new series of studies by Daniel Ames, the Ting Tsung and Wei Fong Chao Professor of Business, and Christine Nguyen, a PhD candidate in the school’s management division has revealed why: people’s judgments of leaders depend not only on leaders’ behavior but also on the evaluators’ beliefs about the world.
The research shows that individuals who see society as a ruthless, Darwinian competition—a competitive worldview—are more likely to admire antagonistic leaders, interpreting their behavior as evidence of competence and effectiveness. Those who see the world as cooperative and fair, by contrast, tend to view the same behavior as counterproductive or incompetent.
By examining perceptions across more than 2,000 people, the researchers shed light on why antagonistic leaders can attain and retain power, even when most workers prefer friendly and supportive leaders.
How the Research Was Done
Nguyen and Ames conducted seven primary studies, along with four supplementary studies, using both surveys and experiments.
In the first two studies, participants rated the effectiveness of various interpersonal behaviors, from warm and friendly to harsh and antagonistic. A competitive worldview consistently predicted more favorable views of antagonistic behaviors. Importantly, this relationship held even after accounting for other traits such as cynicism and social dominance orientation.
What the Researchers Found
While the scenarios varied leader gender and context, it became evident that people high in competitive worldview judged antagonistic managers as more competent, while those low in competitive worldview favored affiliative ones. Additional analyses suggested these differences were driven by participants’ assumptions about whether antagonism works.
“Aggressive leaders don’t just get a pass—they can actually gain power because some people see their behavior as a sign of strength,” Nguyen says. “Our research shows that people’s worldviews act like lenses: those who see the world as cutthroat are more likely to interpret forceful leadership as competent and effective. That helps explain how toxic leadership styles can not only persist—but thrive.”
However, across the studies, affiliative leaders were generally rated more positively. Even those high in competitive worldview showed only a greater tolerance for antagonism rather than a consistent preference for it.
Read the full article by Jonathan Sperling / Columbia Business Insights
