Predecessors set the bar for both succeeding leaders and their employees

We all assume that leaders learn from the best and become great. Yet history also suggests that leaders can end up corrupt. Who exactly do the leaders learn from to make them good or bad?

Jack Welch, Steve Jobs or Oprah Winfrey may be some of your choices of leaders to emulate. However, research suggests that people may not learn from those out-of-reach idols — but their own professional predecessors instead.

Researchers studied a group of 93 people who were promoted as leaders from within their teams. Findings suggested that these leaders, who had been exposed to their predecessors’ abuse (such as acting in derogatory ways to employees), employed the same abusive strategies in leading his/her respective teams under two circumstances: A) the previous team had achieved a good performance or B) the successor assumed an ideal leader to be cold [1].

Researchers argue that the newly promoted (but inexperienced) leader copied the former leader’s abusive behaviors either because he/she thought the former leader was competent or he/she admired ruthless leader styles. Although nobody is comfortable being abused, people ironically learn bad things from their own pain.

If the new leader learns from his/her predecessor, what about the subordinates? Does the recently departed leader still cast influence on the remaining employees? Examining 203 employees and their newly assigned leaders from 22 teams, research found that employees used the former leader’s behaviors for comparison to determine the new leader’s leadership effectiveness. In the study, the effectiveness of the new individual’s leadership, including communicating with employees, troubleshooting, and leading employees to adapt to demands, depends on the former leader’s behaviors. In other words, compared to the former leader, if the present leader communicates to employees frequently, initiates troubleshooting and helps employees adapt to job demands, those employees feel more attached to what the new leader says and feel less resistance to changes at work.

On the other hand, if the present leader is less engaged in communication or less concerned for employees’ reactions than the former leader was, employees are less  committed to the new leader’s demands [2].

Putting both research findings together, both the new leader and remaining employees remain influenced by the already-departed leader.

Human beings are good at utilizing (or being confused by) recent memory. The current leaders seem to possess all the power and control over everything, but instead, the predecessors may have already set the path. We may not have control over the departed legacy, either good or bad; however, if you are a succeeding leader, use the legacy wisely to pave your own path and achieve your own glory.

Reference

[1] Tu, M. H., Bono, J. E., Shum, C., & LaMontagne, L. (2018). Breaking the cycle: The effects of role model performance and ideal leadership self-concepts on abusive supervision spillover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 689-702.

[2] Zhao, H. H., Seibert, S. E., Taylor, M. S., Lee, C., & Lam, W. (2016). Not even the past: The joint influence of former leader and new leader during leader succession in the midst of organizational change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(12), 1730-1738.