The London School of Economics says dominance in business can alienate followers and weaken decision-making. But others defend the "tiger" in the boardroom. Who's right?

When Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the suspended press spokesperson for the WikiLeaks website gave his first interview to the media, he said the culture of the organisation he had left was "hierarchical" and that discussions about roles and responsibilities were "stifled". He claimed his boss, founder Julian Assange, was resistant to criticism. Domscheit-Berg told The Times: "If Julian can just snap his fingers and suspend me-he accused me of insubordination and disloyalty—what does this say? It means that WikiLeaks is his baby and only his."

Dominance or assertiveness is often listed among key traits of acknowledged leaders and can be a valuable tool to deploy. In a crisis, for example, when there's a need for rapid, co-operative action or if the person in charge needs to challenge poor performance. Or if there are significant disagreements among a group, or the thinking of the individual members of the board needs to be aligned.

But if such assertive behaviour is a director's only method of management, or it's used in the wrong circumstances, the organisation could suffer. As Tony Ericson, founding partner at Achievement Coaching, points out: "It's important to recognise that without these attributes that drive business success, companies can lose their way and fail. But these behaviours do cause difficulties for many people. This matters because they can result in loss of personal performance, reduced quality of working life and reduced effectiveness of the organisation."

The Downside of Looking Like a Leader, a study co-authored by Dr Connson Locke of the Department of Management at the London School of Economics and published in August, argues that a powerful demeanour stifles the opinions, ideas and input of employees. Even worse, it can harm the decision-making process: people will defer to strong leaders, even if they think their decisions are poor.

Locke focused on the impact that leaders' body language, or "non-verbal expressions", have on the followers in an organisation to underline her point. She recalls a previous experience as a management consultant at a multinational corporation: "I had to help people who were promoted to leadership positions look more like leaders. The way you look more like a leader is to use the posture—eye contact, the confident, easily audible voice and fluid speech—so that people will take you more seriously."

What she noticed, though, was an unintended consequence. While senior decision-makers were busying themselves using non-verbal behaviours to try to get ahead, what they were unconsciously doing was alienating others by impeding communication or what she calls "push-back". What she learnt, she says, is that leaders need a variety of tools to apply to different situations. "To borrow that phrase 'if all you have is a hammer, all you see is a nail'—leaders need more than just hammers. They need to be versatile and understand what the situation calls for."

Common sense, you might think. Surely every leader knows it's best to have more than one string to their bow? Not necessarily. With the benefit of more access to senior directors than most, consultants have the chance to observe the decision-making process first-hand. There are still one-trick ponies out there, they say.

Robert Terry, founder and managing director of consultancy ASK, recalls how one director was so forceful that his colleagues, including the finance director, were moved to hide the unpleasant news he so actually needed to hear. The consequence? "The accounts were qualified [the auditors doubted that the picture of the company's activities was true, complete and fair], the finance director left and the chief executive was struck off."

Assertiveness appears to interfere with collaboration, agrees Jon Cowell, a business psychologist with Edgecumbe Consulting. If people don't feel it's safe to put forward different opinions, in the longer term you could find yourself with less creative solutions to problems. "Where a leader or chief executive stops hearing the bad news, or contrary opinion, they become more isolated from what's going on, and information becomes impoverished," says Cowell. "It stifles that richer debate".

But not everyone is entirely sympathetic to the LSE research. Achievement Coaching's Ericson believes that judging a leader by their behaviour and what they "ought" to be doing is unhelpful and doomed to fail. He says there's no wrong or right way. It might be hard to stomach, but if employees actually confront their relationship problems by understanding that people think and communicate differently from themselves, they'll learn how to deal with them better, and the workplace will be more harmonious and collaborative as a result.

"The reality is that tigers behave like tigers because they think like tigers," he explains. "If you try to stop behaving like one you stop thinking like one. The result is a mangy tiger or a confused pussycat. Business needs tigers, and any ideas about muzzling, controlling or moderating them are basically the wrong solutions to an incorrect diagnosis."

Adrian Fawcett, chief executive of General Healthcare Group, a 9,000-employee provider of independent healthcare, says the study runs the risk of stereotyping people. He argues it's possible for a leader to have both a strong sense of direction and purpose and the ability to structure an organisation around collaborative decision-making. "There's a danger in saying that because someone is strong and capable in one thing, they aren't actually able to adopt the behaviour of another," he says.

Locke says that what she wanted to emphasise was that leaders should become more aware of what they're doing unconsciously. "The more they're able to do that, the more they're able to control the effect they're having on people around them." Leaders tend to know how to be more collaborative anyway, she insists. "Things like using a listening posture, asking questions, spending more time listening than speaking, acknowledging and using the input you get..."

Let's put this into context, says Terry. If you're in a crisis, you probably need a different style of leadership from your "peace time" mode. Clearly, some leaders don't manage the switch well. Like Locke, he says the best ones have a complete set of attributes and skills. Honesty, integrity, courage and durability are top of his list. He also adds openness and trust. As for skills: "That's likely to be things like the ability to communicate, intellectual capacity and pastoral skills. Your legacy as a leader depends on what you leave behind."

What Terry doesn't see among any of the key qualities is charisma, of which he's normally suspicious. He explains: "There have been some right scoundrels in history who have used their charisma for influence. They've generally been rather nasty bastards. Leaders who have lacked that immediate aura, who have less animal magnetism and have developed more sophisticated skills in order to get the job done—I warm to them."

All of which suggests that the best leaders are made, not born, and that those who've worked at it have more to offer the modern workplace. As Cowell points out, assertiveness per se is a personality trait and tends to be unchanging over time. Some people, he says, develop an early capacity for assertiveness—"a desire to strongly influence things, to speak up a lot, to dominate proceedings". But a good HR director or other provider of counsel will separate that relatively unchanging personality trait from behavioural components that can be learnt.

He explains: "Collaboration as a skill set and a collective set of attitudes is something that can be developed. Even assertive people can learn how to behave and engage with other people in such a way as to encourage debate."

What's not useful, he says, is to be told that your character is getting in the way of running the business. "It's helpful to be told how to do something differently. Again, the non-verbal parts of assertiveness—those elements around posture, expression and tone—are things that people can learn quite actively and deliberately," he explains.

It's unrealistic to expect our leaders to be perfectly rounded, with shining interpersonal, strategic and operational skills, adds Cowell. In his view, leadership is much better seen as a team sport. "Chief executives should be aware of their own strengths and the areas where they're not so strong. To learn when to play themselves in and when to step back."

an admired leader is...

There are essential "character tests" a person must pass before others are willing to grant the designation of leader. The top five are:

• Honest
• Forward-looking
• Inspiring
• Competent
• Intelligent

Taken from The Truth About Leadership, by James M Kouzes and Barry Z Posner, published by Wiley