A global survey of leaders was conducted to understand their leadership styles from a neuro-biological perspective. The executive summary of the report is given below. The complete article can be read and downloaded at

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14741616/21st-century-Leadership-A-Neurobiological-perspective



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



Research and commentators identified IRRESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP as the root cause of the global financial meltdown. To most commentators, greed and a lack of understanding triggered the collapse. We asked a different question. We wanted to find out why so many intelligent people followed the herd instinct. Our previous research had identified different manifestations of TOXIC LEADERSHIP defined as “any form of bullying or manipulation that causes stress in a subordinate or colleague”. We noted that the press labelled bad debts and worthless securities as “toxic debts” or “toxic assets”. How could anyone link the word toxic (i.e. poisonous) with asset (i.e. advantage)? Our research suggests that many intelligent people don’t think straight or logically anymore. We have created a new label for straight thinking that leads to RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP. We call it “Values Governed” (VG) leadership. We use the term to differentiate it from 2 prevalent styles of leadership in our societies namely “beliefs directed” (BD) leadership and “feelings driven” (FD) leadership.



Beliefs directed leadership is rationality gone awry. It works on a self-regulating premise: “unless there is tangible evidence that disproves something, I can accept it as true”. On first hearing, the premise sounds reasonable, but “look beneath the surface” at the consequences and you will probably recoil in horror. One example: the 2 guys deemed to have “dreamed up” the idea of sub-prime believed that what they had “figured out” (their term) was the perfect security. Their “approach” transformed “lead into gold” – sub-prime into triple AAA debt. When we read it, in these terms, we are aghast that highly intelligent “bankers” missed it. The truth is different. Many (back office) banking professionals did NOT miss the significance. They reported it to their superiors and they were told very firmly to shut up, resign or take early retirement. Notice the emergence of Toxic Leadership.



Our study set out to identify and understand which combinations (or cluster) of behaviours manifested which leadership styles. We used a model based on the neurological basis of behaviour to collect and analyse data. The framework of the model enables profilers and profilees to understand behaviour from both a perceived (self perception) and a predicted (what others think) perspective.



The study revealed that 85% of leaders believe they have a different leadership to the style revealed in the study. Most of the 85% believed that they were either pacesetters or achievement-oriented. Few would have believed that the majority of their subordinates would perceive then as “autocratic” leaders – bullying their staff to produce the required results. In neurological terms, most of the 85% would be categorised as front-brainers (pacesetters) or left-brainers (achievers). Put the 2 styles together – front left brainers – and, bingo, they become autocratic. The key point to note is that no individual can actually “look beneath the surface” at their own behaviour patterns. Thus, the leaders perceived themselves as “pacesetters” or “achievers”. Nearly all of them had behaviour patterns where these 2 styles were significant (i.e. they appeared in the top 3 out of 9 styles). The consequence is that most of them remain unaware that their style has a toxic effect on other people and on their performance.



The results suggest that, on the surface, genetics have less influence on the leadership style and that circumstances and events have more influence when the “beliefs directed” thinking style prevails. Less than 15% of the leaders were, in practice, “values governed”. The consistency between self-perception and predicted was significantly higher for the 15%. The report also presents facts on why models using a brain-based epistemology and a quasi-neurological framework provide significantly more insightful behavioural profiles. In short, what can look “great” on the outside has serious flaws on the inside.



The characteristics of 4 toxic leadership styles and 5 non-toxic leadership styles are stated to enable the readers to understand the behavioural configuration of “Value Governed” leaders. Perhaps more than anything else, in light of the global financial meltdown, the data indicates the need to get “congruent values” back in the boardrooms. We noted that, on the surface, a majority of leaders rated themselves high in terms of strategic thinking. The results suggest that most of them manifest a dynamic, proactive and assertive style that prompts them to make expedient decisions rather than strategic decisions. We suspect that many modern leaders have non-consciously succumbed to a “quasi-beliefs directed” mindset, believing it to be values based and strategic. In support of our claim, we have noted that, since 1970, a massive majority of the influential Business Gurus have emphasised the notion of leadership and downgraded the benefits of management, in particular execution capability and accountability.