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.
Subsequent studies asked participants to evaluate managers in written vignettes, some behaving in a friendly, affiliative way and others acting harshly. Compared to people who saw the world as cooperative, people who saw the world as competitive considered aggressive managers to be more competent and more effective as leaders; they believed the reverse for warm, friendly managers.
The researchers also tested perceptions of real-world cases. In one study, participants evaluated the now-famous Olive Garden manager who sent a scathing message to employees about missed shifts. Those with a competitive worldview were more likely to interpret the manager as a competent leader. Another study examined admired CEOs, including Apple’s Tim Cook and GM’s Mary Barra. Those with a competitive worldview were more likely to think those CEOs were belligerent and antagonistic on their rise to the top–and that such behavior helped them gain power.
Finally, employees reflected on their own managers. Those with higher competitive worldview scores were more likely to report working for antagonistic bosses, and more likely to view them as competent, respectful, and worth staying with.
“The same aggressive boss can look like a genius to one person and a disaster to another,” Ames says. “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.”
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.
Why the Research Matters
The findings shed new light on a long-standing puzzle: Why do antagonistic leaders still rise if people overwhelmingly prefer supportive ones? Part of the answer lies in divergent worldviews. Those who see the world as competitive perceive aggression as effective and savvy, granting antagonistic leaders enough backing to persist despite broader disapproval. If those driving leader selection processes (such as boards and funders) have a competitive worldview, they may install a leader whose aggression they view as necessary.
This dynamic carries risks for organizations. As antagonistic leaders attract followers who share their worldview, they may become surrounded by employees who tolerate or even celebrate their style. These echo chambers can entrench toxic behaviors and distort a leader’s sense of their effectiveness. Leaders may wrongly conclude that intimidation works when, in reality, it only resonates with a subset of people.
Their findings also underscore the importance of fit between leaders and employees. Human resources professionals and organizational designers should recognize that employees’ worldviews shape how they evaluate leaders and the kinds of leaders they are willing to follow. Encouraging some diversity in perspectives may help prevent insular cultures from developing, but, overall, warmth inspires more loyalty, motivation, and respect than antagonism.
Leaders who lean on aggressive tactics may believe their style is effective, but the evidence suggests that few workers prefer antagonism. At best, some tolerate it. Recognizing this gap could prompt leaders to reconsider their approach, making room for strategies that foster stronger, more enduring support.
FAQs:
Q: Why do some people admire aggressive leaders?
A: People with a competitive worldview—the belief that the world is a ruthless, dog-eat-dog struggle—are more likely to see antagonism as effective and interpret it as a sign of competence.
Q: Do most people prefer aggressive leaders?
A: No. Across all studies, affiliative leaders (warm, supportive, friendly) were rated more positively overall. Even individuals high in competitive worldview showed only a greater tolerance for antagonism, not a consistent preference.
Q: What are the implications for organizations?
A: While antagonistic leaders can persist, they seem to do so by attracting a narrower base of supporters. Organizations risk developing echo chambers where aggression is normalized, even though affiliative leadership inspires broader loyalty and satisfaction.
