NEW YORK, NY – Why do some people see harsh, domineering leaders as savvy and effective—while others view the same behaviors as signs of incompetence? New research from Columbia Business School suggests the answer lies not in the leaders themselves, but in the eyes of the beholder.
The series of studies, Savvy or Savage? How Worldviews Shape Appraisals of Antagonistic Leaders, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and co-authored by Columbia Business School Professor Daniel Ames and Ph.D. student Christine Nguyen ’26, finds that people who view the world as a ruthless, cutthroat place are significantly more likely to admire aggressive leaders. The researchers define this perspective as a “competitive worldview”—the belief that life is a zero-sum game where only the strongest survive. In contrast, those who see the world as cooperative and fair tend to view the same leaders as misguided or unfit.
“The same aggressive boss can look like a genius to one person and a disaster to another,” said Daniel Ames, the Ting Tsung and Wei Fong Chao Professor of Business at Columbia Business School. “It often comes down to your worldview—whether you think success in life requires cooperation or combat. And these views vary, sometimes greatly, from one person to the next.”
Using a mix of survey and experimental methods, the researchers assessed the views of more than 2,000 participants across seven studies. They found that individuals with a strong “competitive worldview” were significantly more likely to see antagonistic behaviors—such as bluntness, blaming, and issuing ultimatums—as effective strategies and signals of competence. In one study, participants evaluated hypothetical managers who used either friendly or antagonistic tactics. Compared to those who saw the world as a cooperative place, those with a competitive worldview consistently rated the antagonistic leaders as smarter and more effective, but rated the friendly leaders less positively. In another, participants read about widely admired CEOs like Tim Cook and Mary Barra. Those who saw the world as more competitive, compared to those who saw the world as more cooperative, assumed these leaders had relied on tougher, more confrontational tactics to rise, and believed those tactics played a bigger role in their success. Across all experiments, participants with a more competitive worldview consistently rated antagonistic leaders as more competent and their behavior as more impactful compared with those who saw the world as cooperative.
“Aggressive leaders don’t just get a pass—they can actually gain power because some people see their behavior as a sign of strength,” said Christine Nguyen, a doctoral student at Columbia Business School and lead author of the study. “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.”
The researchers also found real-world implications. People who scored higher on competitive worldview were more likely to currently work for antagonistic managers, and less likely to leave those jobs. Over time, the research suggests, this can create “organizational echo chambers,” where antagonistic leaders are surrounded by the people who tolerate or even approve of their style.
Additional Findings:
- Perceptions of the world shape assumptions about success stories: Participants with a competitive worldview were more likely to assume that admired CEOs had used harsh tactics to rise to the top, and to believe those tactics played a key role in their success.
- Leadership styles aren’t judged in a vacuum: The same antagonistic behavior was rated as more or less effective depending on the observer’s worldview, suggesting that assessments of leadership are often reflections not only of the leader, but also of the evaluator.
- People’s tolerance for their own bosses varies by their mindset: Participants higher in competitive worldview didn’t just tolerate their aggressive bosses—they reported more respect for their boss, more motivation, more job satisfaction, and a greater desire to work for an antagonistic boss than those with cooperative worldviews.
"To help people thrive and find satisfaction in their work, we should understand not only why managers behave as they do, but also how people perceive managers as they do. Our work adds a new chapter to that story, focused on how people judge antagonistic bosses through their own worldview,” said Nguyen. "One person’s jerk is another person’s genius.”
