For individuals aiming to ascend the corporate hierarchy in the U.S., here’s a notion you may not have reflected on: debate education.
A recent research paper indicates that individuals who grasp the fundamentals of debate are more inclined to progress to leadership positions within U.S. companies compared to those who lack this education. A primary reason is that possessing debate abilities enhances one’s assertiveness in the workplace.
“Debate education can facilitate leadership emergence and progress by nurturing individuals’ assertiveness, which is a significant, esteemed leadership trait in U.S. organizations,” states MIT Associate Professor Jackson Lu, one of the researchers involved in the study.
The study is founded on two experiments and offers empirical insights into leadership development, a topic often discussed through anecdotes rather than analyzed systematically.
“Leadership development is a multi-billion-dollar sector, where individuals invest substantial amounts attempting to assist others in becoming leaders,” Lu explains. “Yet, the general public is not entirely aware of what methods would be effective since there hasn’t been a substantial amount of causal evidence. That’s precisely what we provide.”
The article, “Breaking Ceilings: Debate Training Promotes Leadership Emergence by Increasing Assertiveness,” was released on Monday in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Its authors include Lu, an associate professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management; Michelle X. Zhao, an undergraduate student at the Olin Business School of Washington University in St. Louis; Hui Liao, a professor and assistant dean at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business; and Lu Doris Zhang, a doctoral candidate at MIT Sloan.
Assertiveness in the attention economy
The researchers carried out two experiments. In the initial one, 471 employees from a Fortune 100 company were randomly assigned to either receive nine weeks of debate education or no education. Analyzed 18 months later, those who underwent debate training were approximately 12 percentage points more likely to have moved into leadership positions. This phenomenon was statistically tied to the enhanced assertiveness displayed by participants who received debate training.
The second experiment, involving 975 university participants, further examined the causal impacts of debate education in a controlled environment. Participants were randomly assigned to receive debate training, an alternative non-debate training, or no training at all. Consistent with the first experiment, those who participated in the debate education were more inclined to emerge as leaders in later group activities, an effect statistically attributed to their enhanced assertiveness.
“The addition of a non-debate training condition allowed us to assert causally that debate training, and not just any training, improved assertiveness and facilitated leadership emergence,” Zhang remarks.
To some individuals, boosting assertiveness may not appear to be the ideal strategy for success in a corporate environment, as it could be perceived as likely to elevate tensions or diminish collaboration. However, as the authors highlight, the American Psychological Association defines assertiveness as “an adaptive communication style wherein individuals convey their feelings and needs directly, while maintaining respect for others.”
Lu adds: “Assertiveness is conceptually distinct from aggressiveness. Speaking up in meetings or classrooms does not require individuals to be aggressive. One can inquire politely while still effectively conveying opinions. Naturally, that contrasts with remaining silent altogether.”
Additionally, in today’s competitive landscape where capturing attention is crucial, refined communication abilities may hold greater significance than ever.
“Whether it’s eliminating filler or mastering pacing, knowing how to assert our views helps us to portray a more leader-like demeanor,” Zhang asserts.
How firms identify leaders
The study also reveals that debate training benefits individuals across demographics: its effect was not significantly different between men and women, for those born in the U.S. or abroad, or among various ethnic groups.
Nonetheless, the findings raise further inquiries regarding how organizations identify leaders. As demonstrated by the results, individuals might be motivated to pursue debate education and other general workplace skills. But to what extent do organizations bear the responsibility to comprehend and acknowledge the various skills, beyond assertiveness, that their employees may possess?
“We stress that the responsibility of dismantling leadership barriers should not solely rest on individuals themselves,” Lu remarks. “Organizations ought to recognize and value diverse communication and leadership styles in the workplace.”
Lu also indicates that further investigation is necessary to ascertain whether these organizations are valuing the qualities of their own leaders appropriately.
“There’s a critical distinction between leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness,” Lu states. “Our study focuses on leadership emergence. It’s plausible that individuals who are better listeners, more cooperative, and humble should also be considered for leadership roles because they tend to be more effective leaders.”
This research was partially funded by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.