We argue and show empirically that constructs and measures of positive leadership styles, such as authentic, ethical, and servant leadership, are not veridical representations of leadership behaviors. Instead, these styles conflate behaviors with subjective evaluations of leaders. Labelling behaviors as, for example, “ethical” means evaluating leadership behaviors on positively valenced terms rather than describing these behaviors. Across four experiments, we show that positive leadership styles are outcomes that depend on non-behavioral, evaluative factors, such as information about a leader’s previous success or value alignment between leaders and followers. More importantly, the measures of these leadership styles create causal illusions by spuriously predicting objective outcomes, even when leader behaviors and other leader-specific factors are kept constant. Furthermore, these measures have predictive properties similar to those of a purely evaluative measure of leadership. In conclusion, our studies cast serious doubts on previous research claiming that positive leadership styles cause positive outcomes. Moreover, positive leadership style research is not only wrong but also practically futile because its constructs and measures are amalgams that do not isolate concrete and learnable behaviors. We call for a radical reorientation of leadership style research and sketch out options for more solid future research.

中文翻译：

---

致命缺陷：积极的领导风格研究造成因果幻觉


我们通过实证论证并证明，积极领导风格的构建和衡量，例如真诚、道德和仆人式领导，并不是领导行为的真实表征。相反，这些风格将行为与对领导者的主观评价混为一谈。例如，将行为标记为“道德”意味着用正价术语评估领导行为，而不是描述这些行为。通过四项实验，我们表明，积极的领导风格是取决于非行为评估因素的结果，例如有关领导者先前成功的信息或领导者与追随者之间的价值观一致性。更重要的是，即使领导者行为和其他领导者特定因素保持不变，这些领导风格的衡​​量标准也会通过错误地预测客观结果而产生因果幻觉。此外，这些指标具有与纯粹的领导力评估指标相似的预测特性。总之，我们的研究对先前声称积极的领导风格会带来积极结果的研究提出了严重质疑。此外，积极的领导风格研究不仅是错误的，而且实际上是徒劳的，因为它的结构和措施是混合体，不能孤立具体的、可学习的行为。我们呼吁对领导风格研究进行彻底的重新定位，并为未来更可靠的研究勾勒出选择方案。