The downside of looking like a leader: Power, nonverbal confidence, and participative decision-making

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.12.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Powerful individuals' nonverbal display of confidence lowered others' participation.

  • People deferred to confident powerful individuals' flawed decisions.

  • Powerful individuals' nonverbal confidence predicted worse performance.

Abstract

An abundance of evidence suggests that exhibiting a confident nonverbal demeanor helps individuals ascend social hierarchies. The current research examines some of the implications of having individuals in positions of power who exhibit such nonverbal confidence. Three studies examined dyads that worked together on decision-making tasks. It was found that people participated less in a discussion when they interacted with a powerful individual who exhibited confidence than when a powerful individual did not exhibit confidence. Moreover, people who interacted with a confident powerful individual participated less because they viewed that individual to be more competent. People even deferred to the confident powerful individual's opinions when that individual was wrong, leading to suboptimal joint decisions. Moderation analyses suggest that the powerful individual was able to mitigate the effects of a confident demeanor somewhat by also showing an open nonverbal demeanor.

Introduction

Individuals who exhibit a confident nonverbal demeanor are more likely to attain positions of status and power than others. For example, individuals who convey a more confident posture, eye-gaze pattern, and vocal tone receive more deference, are given more control over joint decisions, and emerge as leaders more often than those who convey less confidence (Carli et al., 1995, Driskell et al., 1993). Strikingly, this pattern emerges even when an individual's confident demeanor is unwarranted — that is, when the individual is actually no more competent than others and when his or her ideas are incorrect (Anderson, Brion, Moore, & Kennedy, 2012).

What are the implications of having confident, and even overconfident, individuals in positions of power and authority? While there might be some advantages to highly confident individuals occupying elevated social positions, we propose that there can also be downsides. Specifically, we hypothesize that in collaborative endeavors, powerful individuals who exhibit a highly confident nonverbal demeanor cause others to participate less, or to suppress their own ideas and opinions. We further hypothesize that others will defer to a confident powerful individual even when that individual's confidence is unjustified – in other words, when that individual's judgment is wrong – thus harming collective performance.

We examined these ideas in three laboratory studies in which participants completed dyadic decision-making tasks while being videotaped. We focused on powerful individuals' nonverbal display of confidence because prior research suggests that the interpersonal effects of confidence emerge through nonverbal behavior (e.g., Kennedy, Anderson, & Moore, 2013). In Study 1, participants were randomly assigned to high- or low-power roles in a dyadic task. Nonverbal confidence was assessed naturalistically. In Study 2, to help establish the causal effects of confidence, a trained confederate occupying the high-power role conveyed a high or low level of confidence. Study 2 also examined mediating mechanisms and performance outcomes. Study 3 examined a potential moderating condition: the nonverbal display of openness to others' input.

Why does confidence help people attain positions of power and status? People interpret confident nonverbal behavior as a sign of competence and ability. Individuals' actual competence resides within them and is hidden from others, and thus others are often forced to judge individuals' abilities based on superficial cues such as nonverbal behavior, appearance, or speaking style. For example, individuals are seen as competent when they exhibit an erect posture (Ridgeway, 1987), give direct eye contact (Driskell et al., 1993), and speak in a loud and confident tone (Anderson, Brion, Moore, & Kennedy, 2012). In turn, once individuals are perceived as competent, they are accorded more influence and are more likely to be placed in positions of power (e.g., Bass, 2008, Lord et al., 1986). In fact, recent research suggests that individuals with a confident nonverbal demeanor can attain positions of status and power even when their confidence is unwarranted. For example, Anderson, Brion, Moore, and Kennedy (2012) found that individuals who exhibited more confidence nonverbally were perceived by teammates as more competent and achieved more influence, even when they were actually not more competent than others (also see Anderson and Kilduff, 2009, Kennedy et al., 2013).

There are many important implications of the idea that individuals who display a confident nonverbal demeanor disproportionately occupy positions of power, regardless of whether their confidence is justified. Here we focus on one set of implications regarding participative decision-making: we propose that when powerful individuals convey a confident nonverbal demeanor, others will participate less.

As stated earlier, people defer more to others who appear to possess superior capabilities. People who feel less competent than others inhibit their own contributions and afford others greater influence (Anderson, Willer, Kilduff, & Brown, 2012). Therefore, by displaying a confident nonverbal demeanor, powerful individuals are likely to appear more competent, but their perceived competence is also likely to lead others to contribute less.

It is also possible that powerful individuals' confident demeanor might stifle others' participation because it makes the powerholder appear threatening. The organizational literature on voice has shown that fear of negative consequences is a key reason followers fail to raise important issues to their leaders (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009, Ryan and Oestreich, 1991). By definition, powerful individuals control resources that others value and have the ability to punish others (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Subordinates sometimes fear that if they speak up, the powerful individual will withhold valued resources or punish them in some way.

However, confident nonverbal behaviors do not necessarily convey threat. Nonverbal confidence cues such as upright posture or direct eye contact have been called “task cues,” and have been distinguished from “dominance cues” (e.g. forward looming posture, staring; Ridgeway, 1987, Ridgeway et al., 1985). The former convey a high level of ability while the latter convey a desire to control others through threat. Therefore, we examined whether perceived threat mediated the effects of powerful individuals' confident demeanor as an open question.

Relevant to this distinction, prior research has found that individuals in powerful positions who use an autocratic or dominating style can stifle others' participation (for a review, see Bass, 2008). For example, a recent study found that more dominating leaders dampen team communication (Tost, Gino, & Larrick, 2013). However, that work focuses on leaders who are threatening and intimidating, whereas we are focused on nonverbal confidence. Those two variables are distinct. While confidence is socially valued and even encouraged in aspiring leaders (Fritz et al., 2005, Howell and Costley, 2006), dominance and intimidation are not. The current research examines whether something as lauded as confidence can stifle others' participation just like dominance and intimidation.

The current research makes a number of important contributions. First, in the literature on social hierarchy, functionalist accounts have proposed that hierarchies help groups succeed by coordinating members' behavior and incentivizing self-sacrifice for the collective good (Van Vugt, 2006). However, hierarchies often harm group performance rather than help it (Anderson and Brown, 2010, Halevy et al., 2011). The current research examines one possible reason why: by systematically promoting highly confident and overconfident individuals into positions of power, groups might in some cases hamper their collective performance. Second, we extend emerging research on the interpersonal consequences of confidence and overconfidence (e.g., Anderson, Brion, Moore and Kennedy, 2012, Radzevick and Moore, 2011, Von Hippel and Trivers, 2011). While prior work has emphasized the interpersonal benefits of overconfidence for the individual, here we examine whether overconfidence can incur costs to the collective. Third, the literature on power has found that being put in a low-power position causes individuals to speak less and inhibit themselves (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). The current research examines whether the degree to which people do so depends on the individual who has power over them. That is, individuals in positions of subordination might speak less than those above them on average; yet subordinated individuals might be particularly likely to speak less if the person above them is nonverbally confident.

Section snippets

Study 1

Study 1 aimed to test our primary hypothesis: that a confident demeanor displayed by a powerful individual will decrease others' participation. Participants were randomly paired into dyads to work on a decision-making task; within each dyad they were randomly assigned to a high-power (supervisor) or low-power role (subordinate). Participants were videotaped while working together; independent judges rated nonverbal demeanor and participation. We also examined whether the effects of a confident

Study 2

Study 2 had three aims. First, it aimed to establish the causal priority of the powerful individuals' confident demeanor. To do so we again wanted to involve participants in an actual interaction. Thus, we trained a research confederate to communicate pre-scripted arguments while modifying his nonverbal demeanor across conditions. We used a male confederate across conditions because sex of participants did not moderate the effects in Study 1. Second, we examined the mechanisms underlying the

Study 3

In Study 3 we examined whether the effects of a powerful individual's confident demeanor on others' participation might be mitigated when that individual also nonverbally conveys openness to others' input. A consistent theme in prior research is that people speak up more when they perceive those in power to be open to their opinions and ideas (Detert and Burris, 2007, Edmondson, 1999). A sense of openness to others' input can be conveyed through nonverbal behavior (Gorden, 1975, Heller, 1972,

Summary of findings

In three studies, all involving live interactions, we found that when powerful individuals conveyed a confident nonverbal demeanor in a joint decision-making task, others participated less in the task — and did so because they viewed the powerful individual as more competent. We also found that people deferred to confident powerful individuals' opinions even when those opinions were incorrect, which resulted in poorer joint performance. Finally, when the powerful individual nonverbally conveyed

Conclusions

Much research has shown that conveying confidence helps individuals appear more competent and ascend social hierarchies. The current studies suggest that this pervasive pattern might have some negative consequences: namely, after attaining a powerful position, individuals' confidence might stifle others' participation and lead to poorer joint outcomes. These results do not necessarily suggest that individuals in positions of power should avoid conveying confidence, but instead that individuals

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the Schwabacher Fellowship, UC Berkeley Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, and Haas X-Lab. We gratefully acknowledge the invaluable comments provided by James R. Detert, Dacher Keltner, Laura J. Kray, Tara C. Reich, Daan Stam, and Barry Staw.

References (44)

  • B.M. Bass

    The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications

    (2008)
  • L.L. Carli et al.

    Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1995)
  • D.R. Carney et al.

    Beliefs about the nonverbal expression of social power

    Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

    (2005)
  • J.R. Detert et al.

    Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open?

    Academy of Management Journal

    (2007)
  • J.E. Driskell et al.

    Task cues, dominance cues, and influence in task groups

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1993)
  • A.H. Eagly et al.

    Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1992)
  • J.A. Edinger et al.

    Nonverbal involvement and social control

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1983)
  • A.C. Edmondson

    Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (1999)
  • A. Field

    Discovering statistics using SPSS

    (2005)
  • S. Fritz et al.

    Interpersonal skills for leadership

    (2005)
  • A.D. Galinsky et al.

    From power to action

    Journal of personality and social psychology

    (2003)
  • R.L. Gorden

    Interviewing: Strategy, techniques, and tactics

    (1975)
  • Cited by (33)

    • The bright side and the dark side of top management support in Digital Transformaion –A hermeneutical reading

      2022, Technological Forecasting and Social Change
      Citation Excerpt :

      Importantly, this can also negatively affect creativity at all levels of an organization (Liu et al., 2012). Moreover, management research reveals that when a leader is highly confident, this may discourage others from participating in decision-making, even when the leader's opinions appear to be incorrect (Locke & Anderson, 2015). Indeed, Tourish (2013) argues that leadership is a “contested concept” and reveals that leaders’ dysfunctional application of institutional power lies behind many of the high-profile corporate failures seen in recent years.

    • Power and decision making: new directions for research in the age of artificial intelligence

      2020, Current Opinion in Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Competence, or the ability to influence people and outcomes in desired ways [42,43] is often presumed to be present among those filling high-power roles [44]. Similarly, people ascribe and afford power to those who signal competence via displays of dominance and confidence [45,46•,47–50,51•]. Importantly, people expect competence among powerholders in a prescriptive manner as well, leading the powerful to experience ego threat and engage in various forms of compensatory defensive aggression when they are unable to meet this expectation [37,52,38].

    • Power and cognitive functioning

      2020, Current Opinion in Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Because powerful people can exert more control over their environment and other people, and others defer to them by default [1], their thinking carries great impact.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text