恰到好处的自信！虽然自信并不像大家对优点评价一样的普遍，但它仍然被人们说成是领导能力的弱点，当领导者自信地做出了错误的决定，那这是清晰可见，深入人心的；但当他自信地做了正确决定，它就消失了。就像我们谈起调味料中的盐一样，当它太多或者太少的时候，我们就很难注意到其它的东西，但它恰到好外的时候，你就只注意到其它的滋味了。没有人因为调味料中恰到好处的含盐量而称赞它，就像领导人不能够通过恰当的自信水平而获得称赞一样。
最近一项研究显示：最好的领导者（雇主）是那些自信程度恰到好处的人。
华盛顿特区——刊登于《人格与社会心理学》杂志(由APA出自发行)二月号的一项研究显示，一个组织的领导者自信特别高或者特别低，都会被习惯认为效率低下。处于中间水平的领导者具有“最佳的”自信程度，但是许多公司都在两个极端上。研究显示，在这些有抱负的领导者中，过高或者过低水平的自信是他们最普遍的弱点。
在一系列研究中，哥伦比亚商学院教授Daniel Ames博士和斯坦福商学研究所教授Francis Flynn博士，要求工人表述同事的领导能力优点与缺点。报告的最普遍的优点包括一些传统的领导者特质：智慧，自我约束以及感召力。报告的最普遍的缺点不仅仅是优点的反面，这是令人吃惊的结果。通过对领导者和潜在领导者的几次取样，Ames和Flynn发现：自信问题是被提及最多的，有时候甚至超过感召力，智慧，和自我约束三者的组合。
这个发现的其中一个原因是：自信不像感召力，通常只有在缺乏的时候才表现出问题。潜在的领导者在两个极端情况下都表现出“错误”自信。在其中一个测试中，Ames和Flynn的研究团队对工人们给出的对同事领导能力的1000多项解释进行了编码。在这些用于形容领导力缺点的解释中，最常被提及的是“自信”，是排名第二解释总合的两倍，包括：“凝聚力”，“能力”，“可靠”等等。这其中有一半的描述弱点的词清楚的指向“自信”，对于这些解释，48%的是认为过于自信，而剩下的就认为是太不自信了。
Ames说“虽然自信不像同事对优点评价一样的普遍，但它仍然被说成是领导能力的弱点，当领导者自信的做了错误决定，那这是清晰可见，深入人心的；但当他自信的做了正确决定，它就消失了。就像我们谈起调味料中的盐一样，当它太多或者太少的时候，我们就很难注意到其它的东西，但它恰到好外的时候，你就只注意到其它的滋味了。没有人因为调味料中恰到好处的含盐量而称赞它，就像领导人不能够通过恰当的自信水平而获得称赞一样。”
在发现了自信对领导人的挑战是如此广泛之后，Ames和Flynn试图探寻是什么在影响着两个极端的表现？答案是：每一个失败的结局都有不同的原因。“积极性高却自信不够的领导人不能够坚持他们的兴趣，在达到目标和发布结果时，他们被指责效率低下。相反，那些自信高的人通常不能够忍受这种指责。所以，既便是他们获得了他想要的，他们也弄僵了与周围人的关系。随着时间的流逝，社会成本融合并开始破坏这些结果。”Ames表明。“大部分高效的领导人努力推进自己的想法，而不是努力维持被他们弄僵了的关系。”
Ames和Flynn警告道：他们的结果并不是说对领导者而言，解决问题的方法就是始终都恰当的自信。相反，而是告诉领导者，在环境要求表现低调行为时，适当的自信可以更好的促进自己的反应。领导者坚持积度的自信会让自己的行为表现得目光短浅。
Ames和Flynn说：当人们知道既不是蛮横的也不是不管事的领导者是最好的时候，他们为以前的大错特错而感到惊讶。我们发现学者和管理人员总是不在乎别人对他们行为的看法，其中一个原因就是人们总是像对待自信一样，对一件事情给予不公平的反馈。Ames说：“又有谁愿意告诉蛮横的老板说他\她是一个性情古怪的人呢？”
原文阅读：
WHAT MAKES A GOOD LEADER: THE ASSERTIVENESS QUOTIENT
New research shows that the best leaders employ just the right amount of assertiveness
WASHINGTON, DC— Organizational leaders who come across as low or high in assertiveness tend to be seen as less effective, according to a study coming out in the February issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA). Leaders in the middle may have an “optimal” level of assertiveness, but there is plenty of company on the extremes. The research suggests that being seen as under- or over-assertive may be the most common weakness among aspiring leaders.
In a series of studies, Daniel Ames, PhD, a professor at Columbia Business School, and Francis Flynn, PhD, a professor at Stanford Graduate School of Business, asked workers for their views of colleagues’ leadership strengths and weaknesses. The most common strengths reported included conventional leadership traits like intelligence, self-discipline, and charisma. But the most common weaknesses reported revealed a surprising picture that was not just the reverse of strengths. Across several samples of leaders and potential leaders, Ames and Flynn found that assertiveness was by far the most frequently-mentioned problem, sometimes more than charisma, intelligence, and self-discipline combined.
One reason for this finding is that unlike charisma, which is usually problematic only when it’s lacking, potential leaders got assertiveness “wrong” in both directions. And in one of the studies examined, Ames and Flynn’s research team coded nearly a thousand comments given by coworkers about colleagues’ leadership behavior. The most common leadership adjective in the weakness comments was “assertive,” twice as common as the runners-up such as “focused,” “able,” and “sure.” Overall, more than half of the descriptions of weaknesses made clear references to assertiveness. Of these comments, 48 percent suggested too much assertiveness and the remainder described too little.
“Assertiveness dominated reports of leadership weaknesses, though it wasn’t nearly as common in colleagues’ comments about strengths. When leaders get assertiveness wrong, it’s glaring and obvious, but when they get it right, it seems to disappear,” said Ames. “We say it’s like salt in a sauce: when there’s too much or too little, it’s hard to notice anything else, but when it’s just right, you notice the other flavors. No one compliments a sauce for being perfectly salted, and it’s just as unusual for a leader’s perfect touch with assertiveness to attract much notice.”
After finding that assertiveness was such a widespread challenge for leaders, Ames and Flynn sought to understand what was driving the effect at both extremes. The answer: different reasons for failure at each end. “Aspiring leaders who are low in assertiveness can’t stand up for their interests, and they suffer by being ineffective at achieving goals and delivering results. On the other hand, people high in assertiveness are often insufferable. So, even though they may get their way, they’re chocking off relationships with the people around them. As time goes by, the social costs add up and start to undermine the results,” Ames notes. “Most effective leaders push hard enough to get their way but not so hard that they can’t get along.”
Ames and Flynn caution that their work does not suggest that the solution for leaders is to be moderately assertive all the time. Instead, they claim that leaders seen as moderately assertive may be better able to ratchet up their responses when called for and to tone down their behavior when necessary. Leaders stuck at the extremes of assertiveness may have a narrower repertoire of behavior.
While the idea that neither combative managers nor wallflowers make the best leaders may seem obvious, Ames and Flynn say many people are surprised when they learn that they’re seen by others as off base. “We often find that students and executives are unaware of how other people see their behavior. One reason is because people typically don’t get candid feedback on things like assertiveness,” said Ames. “Who wants to tell the overbearing boss that he or she is a jerk?”
——–
Article: “What Breaks a Leader: the Curvilinear Relation Between Assertiveness and Leadership,” Daniel R. Ames, PhD, Sanford C. Bernstein Associate Professor of Leadership and Ethics at Columbia Business School and Francis J. Flynn, PhD, Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford Graduate School of Business; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2.
天天励志正能量