The importance of followers in the leadership process has led some theories to abandon “leader-centrism” and consider the contribution of followers to leaders’ performance, highlighting the dynamic relationship between the two parties. Leader-member exchange theory is one of the models that best explains this dyadic relationship: leaders’ behavior determines followers’ reactions, which, in turn, influence the leader’s performance in a continuous cycle.
Leaders’ behaviors are not a direct expression of their personal characteristics. They also result from how followers interpret and respond to them, and from how the leader, in turn, reacts to the followers. It is known, for example, that in organizations a cooperative relationship between the two parties increases team performance, reinforces mutual support and effectiveness in problem-solving, and that when employees have critical thinking skills and use emotional intelligence, group processes improve.
In toxic leadership, there is also a dyadic relationship with subordinates that helps to understand the dynamics of these interactions. The way a leader’s behaviors are perceived produces different reactions in employees. They may deal with the situation using strategies focused on facts or emotions, confrontation or avoidance. Depending on how the leader perceives the employees’ strategy, toxic behavior may be reinforced, becoming more aggressive and retaliatory, or more constructive. It is not only the leader’s personality at stake, but the interaction between the leader, the employees, and the situation.
Focusing leadership on the leaders themselves restricts the study of leadership to the knowledge of personality traits, the successes and failures of reference figures, and those who perform formal leadership functions. It reinforces, in leaders, the belief that leadership development is a solitary path of change they can traverse individually, preventing them from adopting an integrated approach that addresses interaction with subordinates, relationships within the team, and with other partners.
In practice, the belief that leadership is only about leaders is one of the factors that contributes to reinforcing the levels of recognition and reward they receive, helping to widen the pay gap separating them from other employees. It fuels arrogance, narcissism, and social and emotional distance from others.
A leader-centered view of leadership concentrates investments in training on them and on those who may occupy the same positions in the future, neglecting the development of the teams and units they lead. Above all, it may hinder fair recognition of those who contribute to the success of teams in the field, including informal leadership that occurs among team colleagues and can be decisive for cohesion and performance.
The influence of followers on leaders’ behavior is also relevant in the political arena. The presidential elections currently taking place show how voters also exercise their leadership over… the leaders. Polls, as well as the public impact of news that jeopardizes their reputation, constitute social feedback that activates psychological mechanisms in candidates at cognitive, motivational, and decision-making levels, which shape their reactions.
Prospect theory, formulated by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, helps to understand one of the candidates’ most frequent reactions: in uncertain environments, people are more willing to take risks to avoid losses than to achieve gains. This explains the higher-risk reactions that leaders tend to adopt when polls are unfavorable or when news may compromise them, leading to abrupt changes in discourse, unexpected proposals, and unusual statements that may compromise their objectives. These reactions have a significant impact on campaign goals.
Favorable polls and new support reinforce the perception of self-efficacy, the sense of self-control, and confidence in achieving bolder goals, potentially leading to unrealistic expectations. Another phenomenon that occurs is availability heuristics: more recent polls, with data assigned particular credibility, can become cognitively dominant, giving rise to optimistic generalizations that override other, more rigorous and reliable data.
Unfavorable polls give rise to dissonance-reduction mechanisms. To maintain their self-concept and the consistency of their positions with the new data, leaders seek justification for the unfavorable feedback, devaluing the poll’s validity or altering the message to make it consonant with voter trends.
This shows that, even in the political arena, followers play a central role in the leadership process, triggering psychological mechanisms in leaders that, although not readily apparent, are decisive for their objectives.
Luís Caeiro, Professor at CATÓLICA-LISBON