OSIPP Discussion Paper : DP-2008-E-002

DecisivenessFebruary 15, 2008
Junichiro Ishida
Associate Professor, Osaka School of International Public Policy (OSIPP)【Key Words】Decisiveness, Transformational leadership, Charismatic leadership,
Information acquisition, Career concerns.
【Abstract】This paper investigates how the presence of strong leadership influences
an organization's ability to acquire and process information. The key concept is theleader's decisiveness. A decisive leader can make a bold move in response to a largechange in the underlying landscape, whereas an indecisive leader biases her position
excessively towards the status quo. An organization led by an indecisive leader
needs to accumulate unrealistically strong evidence before it changes the course ofaction, thereby hindering the organization's ability to adapt to achanging
environment. The analysis identifies several attributes and environmental factorsthat impair one's decisiveness and illuminates how leadership emerges or fades inorganizations.

The

paper also sheds light on a classical issue of whether leaders canbe made, rather than are born: our answer is partially `yes' in that mutual trust among
members of the organization is a critical ingredient of effective leadership.

Correspondence to: Junichiro Ishida, Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University, 1-31
Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan. Tel: +81-6-6850-5634. E-mail address:
jishida@osipp.osaka-u.ac.jp.

Decisiveness∗
Junichiro Ishida
Osaka University
February 15, 2008

Abstract
This paper investigates how the presence of strong leadership influences an organization’s ability to acquire and process information. The key concept is the leader’s
decisiveness. A decisive leader can make a bold move in response to a large change in theunderlying landscape, whereas an indecisive leader biases her position excessively towards
the status quo. An organization led by an indecisive leader needs to accumulate unrealistically strong evidence before it changes the course of action, thereby hindering theorganization’s ability to adapt to a changing environment. The analysis identifies several
attributes and environmental factors that impair one’s decisiveness and illuminates how
leadership emerges or fades in organizations. The paper also sheds light on a classicalissue of whether leaders can be made, rather than are born: our answer is partially ‘yes’ inthat mutual trust among members of the organization is a critical ingredient of effective
leadership.

JEL Classification Codes: D23, D82.
Key Words: Decisiveness; Transformational leadership; Charismatic leadership; Information acquisition; Career concerns.
Correspondence to: Junichiro Ishida, Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University, 1-31 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan. Tel: +81-6-6850-5634. E-mail address:
jishida@osipp.osaka-u.ac.jp.
∗

“If I had to sum up in a word what makes a good manager, I’d say decisiveness.”– Lee Iacocca“In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next
best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.”– Teddy Roosevelt

1

Introduction

Strong leadership is indispensable for any organization to work efficiently. Despite this pervasive view, however, it is not easy in reality to describe what leadership means, let alone how it
works. The apparent problem is the inherent vagueness of the term ‘leadership,’ which offers
almost as many definitions as there are attempts to define the concept (Stogdill, 1974). The
notion of leadership is perhaps too broad and abstract to give a simplistic, one-dimensional,
definition as it seems to encompass a wide range of characteristics such as insight, judgement,
vision, passion, trustfulness and trustworthiness. Whatever it means, though, leadership skills
seem to be a valuable commodity in the labor market.1 There is little doubt that an organization thrives under good leadership while it stumbles under bad one: after all, this is why
we spend so much time and effort to select CEOs, managers, politicians, deans, head coaches,and so on.
This paper is an attempt to shed light on an aspect of leadership in order to illuminate
how the presence of strong leadership improves the organization’s efficiency. Since leadershipis such an elusive notion, our approach is necessarily to be specific by focusing on a relatively
narrowly defined dimension of leadership, which we we refer to as decisiveness. In the present
framework, decisiveness is defined as the ability to take the unconventional and unprecedented
course of action whenever it is called for. Since leaders must sometimes make a bold andcontroversial decision in response to a change in the underlying landscape, their decisivenesspotentially has profound impacts on the organization’s overall efficiency. An organization1

For instance, Kuhn and Weinberger (2005) show that, controlling for other cognitive skills, those who
occupied leadership positions earn more as adults.

1

led by a decisive leader can seize the moment and change the course of action in a timely
fashion, whereas an organization led by an indecisive leader often waits too long, requires
unrealistically strong evidence before it changes the course of action, and as a consequence
excessively adheres to the status quo.
Constructing a simple model of decisiveness, we formally analyze how leadership emerges
or fades in organizations. To this end, consider a problem faced by an organization consistingof a leader (a decision maker) and a follower (an expert). The leader has diverse motives
and is partially motivated by career concerns as evaluated by some outside observer. The
leader’s role in the organization is to give direction and guidance to the follower, thereby
setting the tone for the entire project. Since the leader must typically make decisions on
many different issues, however, she lacks expertise in the problem at hand, and the follower’s
advice (evidence, ideas, etc) is indispensable to make an appropriate move. Examples of thissituation abound:
1. A CEO or a divisional manager needs to solicit advise from an engineer who has expertisein existing technologies or a sales manager who has expertise in consumer tastes. The outside
observer is shareholders or, more broadly, the market.
2. A politician needs to solicit advise from her professional staff (lawyers, economists, consultants and etc) about some policy issues. The outside observer is her constituency.
3. An editor of an academic journal needs to solicit advise from a referee (or the author if
the paper itself is regarded as a form of evidence) to decide whether to accept a submitted
paper. The outside observer is potential readers or, more broadly, the academic community.
More specifically, we consider the following situation. There are two alternative projects
from which the leader must choose: the status quo project and the less conventional, yet
potentially innovative, project. The status quo project is the optimal choice ex ante, which
requires no additional information to implement. With some probability, though, some change
in the underlying landscape occurs, which makes the other, less conventional, project moredesirable. The follower collects evidence indicative of that change and makes an advice to theleader as to whether the change has actually occurred. The question is whether the leader
2

is able to make a bold move, based on the follower’s advice, by taking the path less traveledwhen it is indeed advisable to do so. We identify situations in which the leader persists on
the status quo even when the less conventional project is on average more profitable. Whenthat happens, we say that the leader is indecisive.
Two aspects of the model prove to be critical, which delineates two distinct measuresof the organization’s efficiency: the ability to acquire information and the ability to process
information. First, as stated, the leader is partially motivated by career concerns. Any
mistake costs the leader as it leads to the loss of reputations, but the magnitude of the loss
depends on the way the leader makes mistakes. In general, there are two ways to commit
an error in a statistical decision problem like this: rejecting the correct evidence (the type I
error) and accepting the wrong evidence (the type II error). The leader exhibits indecisivenesswhenever the type I error is more ‘excusable’ than the type II error. When the leader is
indecisive, she rejects the follower’s evidence (in favor of the less conventional project) too
often and excessively adheres to the status quo, thereby hindering the organization’s ability
to process information to adapt to a changing environment.
The other aspect is that the amount of information available within the organization is
endogenous, depending on how much effort the follower expends to collect evidence. Evidently, the follower’s motivation hinges crucially on the leader’s decisiveness. To put the idea
in context, consider a situation where the follower sees some change in the environment (suchas a change in consumer tastes), but needs some extra work to polish that information to beconvincing. The leader’s decisiveness matters in a situation like this. If the follower believes
that the leader has ‘no guts’ to take the unconventional path, his new information or idea willmore likely be ignored, and so his costly effort will be wasted no matter how hard he works
on it. Since no additional information is necessary to implement the status quo, the leader’s
excessive and biased attachment to the status quo only lowers the follower’s motivation to
make a difference, which ultimately hinders the organization’s ability to acquire information.
Through this link, the organization’s ability to acquire information is influenced by its ability
to process information embodied by the leader’s decisiveness.
While it is intuitively clear that the follower’s motivation depends heavily on the leader’s3decisiveness, the converse is also true in the present context. When the follower is lessmotivated, the amount (or the quality) of information deteriorates. This implies that any
decision reached by the organization is more likely to reflect the leader’s own judgement,
which certainly affects her decision making. We argue that committing the type II error inthis environment is more costly because it is often taken as a sign of her own biases in tastes or
opinions. As a consequence, more conscious but less decisive leaders more frequently opt forthe safer option, which is the status quo project. This process illustrates a downward spiralthat an organization led by an indecisive leader often falls into, which thereby illuminates anintricate nature of leadership. Led by an indecisive leader, the organization persists on thestatus quo, which lowers the follower’s motivation. This in turn leads to less information,and the organization becomes even more inflexible, ending up with repeating the same oldroutines over and over.
This implication also sheds light on a classical issue of whether leaders can be made, rather
than are born. Consistent with the recent leadership literature,2 our analysis suggests thatthe nature of leadership is far more complicated than this simple dichotomy can thoroughly
capture. There are certainly some innate attributes and environmental factors that makepeople more or less decisive, but those factors alone are not always sufficient to grasp the entire
picture. There is a more intangible side of leadership in which interactions between leadersand followers are at its core. Due to these interactions, a leader who exhibits decisivenessin one occasion could easily exhibit indecisiveness in another. We thus argue, as one ofour main contentions, that any attempt to single out attributes and behaviors common for
effective leaders would be infertile unless it explicitly takes into account these interpersonal
dependence among members of the organization.
The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 briefly overviews the related literature, in both
economics and other related fields. Section 3 sets up the model and section 4 analyzes theleader’s and the follower’s optimal behaviors. Section 5 discussed implications of the model
especially in relation to the existing leadership literature. Section 6 takes an alternative lookat the problem to explore further into the sources of indecisiveness. Finally, section 7 offers
2

See section 2 for more details.

4some concluding remarks.

2

Related literature

The literature on leadership is enormous and diverse, with a long history dating back at least
to Plato.3 Since then, many attempts have been made to define and characterize the notionof leadership. One question, which is at the center of attention is whether leaders can bemade, rather than are born. Early on, much attention had been paid to traits theories, whichseek for common traits and attributes that effective leaders possess: this strand of theories
hence takes the stance that leaders are born with certain traits suited to leadership. In
contrast, behavioral theories seek for something unique in the way leaders behave, implyingthat effective leadership can be learned. Over time, however, it has become increasingly clear
among leadership scholars that the nature of leadership is too complicated to be summarized
by a few traits or behavioral patterns. This perception eventually gives rise to contingency
theories which focuses more on situational or environmental factors that make leadershipeffective. One of the early attempts along this direction is made by Fiedler (1967) who argues
that the effectiveness of leadership hinges on one’s basic leadership style and its proper matchwith the underlying situation.
Most of the theories mentioned above by and large deal with transactional leadership –a type of leadership where leaders accepts the goals of the existing organization and guidefollowers in the direction of those established goals by clarifying role and task requirements.
There is another type of leadership, called transformational or charismatic leadership, which
inspires followers to transcends their own self-interests for the good of the organization (Robbins, 1994). Transformational leadership occurs when leaders and followers raise one anotherto higher levels of motivation and morality (Burns, 1978). The present paper is very muchin the spirit of this line of literature, and some of its leading views accord well with our maincontentions. We will explore more on this point later in section 5.
Despite the fact that the importance of leadership has been widely recognized in various
fields, economists have only recently began to formalize the notion of leadership. One of
3See, for instance, Takala (1998) for Plato’s thought on leadership.

5

the early attempts is made by Hermalin (1998) who formalizes the notion of leadership in
the context of ‘leading by example’ where a leader transmits information by moving first.4
Recently, several works focus on the notion of ‘vision’ as an important characteristic ofleadership. Rotemberg and Saloner (2000) model vision as a bias which makes the manager
favor one project over the other. Hiring a manager with a vision can be beneficial because
it reduces uncertainty as to what kind of employee initiatives will be favored later.5 Van
den Steen (2005) also formalizes the notion of vision and shows that a leader with strong
beliefs would attract employees with similar beliefs. This sorting effect gives direction to thefirm and improves coordination, suggesting a channel through which strong vision can affectthe firm’s performance. The present paper differs from these previous works as we focus ona different aspect of leadership from a different perspective, although our implications havesome relevance to the notion of vision.
Although not directly related to the issue of leadership, there is a growing literature on
the optimal institutional design (in a very broad sense) when the amount (or the quality)of information is endogenous. To name a few, Aghion and Tirole (1997) discuss how the
allocation of real and formal authority influence the agent’s incentive to collect information.
Dewatripont and Tirole (1999) provide a model of ‘advocates’ and explains why it is often
optimal to ask some parties to defend a specific cause. Szaloy (2005) examines a different
context and shows how eliminating intermediate options would enhance the incentive toacquire information. Li (2001) considers decision making by a committee and shows thatconservative rules enhance the marginal value of information by mitigating the incentive tofree-ride. Conservatism in his paper is closely related to indecisiveness in ours. The mostnotable difference is that Li focuses on horizontal decision making by a committee while
we focus on hierarchical decision making to illuminate the nature of leadership. We thenexplore when and how (excessive) conservatism arises, not as an institutional rule but as an
4
Kobayashi and Suehiro (2005) extend this analysis by assuming that each agent can move either firstor second at his own discretion and show the endogenous emergence of leadership. Building on a similar
framework to Hermalin (1998), Komai et al. (2007) discusses why it is often desirable to restrict information
to the leader, thereby shedding light on the reasons for the necessity of a leader.
5
Similarly, Rotenberg and Saloner (1994) argue that a firm could be better of by committing to a specificbusiness strategy.

6equilibrium behavior, and see its impact on the organization’s ability to acquire and process
information.
There are also some works which examine decision making in the presence of career concerns. Morris (2001) provides a model of political correctness and illustrates how an informed
advisor would bias her information in order to appear politically correct. Tamada and Tsai
(2005) consider the optimal allocation of authority when the principal’s reputations are on theline, and show that the principal keeps too much authority when an outside evaluator cannot
observe who make the decision. Levy (2007) considers decision making by a committee whose
members are motivated by career concerns, and examines the impact of transparency in thedecision-making process. Among them, the most closely related work is Levy (2004) who
looks at the opposite case of the present model, showing that a decision maker with careerconcerns tends to go excessively against the prior. The difference comes from the structure of
the model where, in her model, the decision maker can acquire information on her own andthat signals her ability. In contrast, we consider a case where the follower has expertise in
the issue at hand and the leader must rely on his information to depart from the status quo.
As we will see later, this difference gives rise to the other side of inefficient decision making
where a decision maker sticks excessively with the status quo.

3

Model

3.1

Basic setup

Consider a model with a leader (female), an follower (male), and an outside observer. An
organization, consisting of the leader and the follower, undertakes a project x ∈ {0, 1}. The
value of the implemented project depends on the state of nature θ ∈ {0, 1} where the priorprobability of each state is given byprob{θ = 0} = π, prob{θ = 1} = 1 − π, π > 0.5.
The value of the implemented project for the leader (the follower) is denoted by vL ∈{0, YL } (vF ∈ {0, YF }), which depends only on the state of nature. For simplicity, we assume
that the two projects are symmetric in that vj = Yj > 0, j = L, F , if the right project is
7

implemented, i.e., x = θ, and vj = 0 if the wrong project is implemented, i.e., x 6= θ. Given
that π > 0.5, we call x = 0 the status quo project.

3.2

Information

Although the realized state of nature is not directly observable, the leader can observe someevidence (about the realized state) collected by the follower. Let s ∈ {φ, 1} denote theevidence where s = φ indicates that the follower obtains no evidence (or, alternatively,
obtains totally irrelevant evidence which contains no information). What we refer to as theevidence can literally be some information about the state of nature, or it can be a new
idea to improve the profitability of project x = 1. According to the latter interpretation,s = 1 indicates that the follower comes up with some potentially innovative idea, which could
increase (though sometimes decrease) the probability that x = 1 succeeds from its priorprobability of 1 − π.6
The likelihood of obtaining the evidence depends on the follower’s costly and unobservable
effort e ∈ [0, 1] whereprob{s = 1 | e} = γe, γ ∈ [0, 1].
That is, the amount (or the quality) of information available within the organization is
endogenous, depending on how much cost the follower is willing to take.7 We abstract away
any strategic aspect of communication between the leader and the follower by assuming that
any information acquired by the follower is immediately shared and observed within theorganization.8 We also assume that neither e nor s is verifiable so that a contract contingent
on either of these variables cannot be written.9
The outside observer can observe the implemented project x and the state of nature θ but
6

If we adopt this interpretation, it perhaps makes more sense to assume that the value of x = 0 is always
Yj , j = L, F , regardless of the state of nature whereas that of x = 1 is 2Yj if θ = 1 and zero if θ = 0. Since
the value of the project matters only at the margin, this alteration would not change the following analysis atall, and the problem to be solved is exactly the same.
7
s becomes a measure of the quality of information if we interpret s = φ as irrelevant evidence, which
provides no additional information to the prior, rather than no evidence.
8
Several recent papers explore consequences and implications of strategic communication, based on Crawford and Sobel (1982). See, for instance, Krishna and Morgan (2001), Morris (2001) and Dessein (2002).
9
That is, the type of information that can be acquired is ‘soft’ in that it is an informal exchange ofmessages between the leader and the follower so that a contract contingent on the follower’s information
cannot be enforced.

8nothing more. Based on these observations, the outside observer rationally updates the priorand computes the posterior belief. Let mx,θ denote the posterior belief held by the outside
observer conditional on the available information.

3.3

Project choice

The leader retains final authority to pick a project to implement. The leader is either rationalor irrational, and the type is her private information unobservable for the follower and theoutside observer. The common prior probability that the leader is rational is given by µ ∈(0, 1).
The rational type, as in the usual sense, processes information in a Bayesian consistentmanner, and makes a decision to maximize her own payoff. When the evidence is brought inby the follower, the rational type evaluates how reliable the evidence is. Let r ∈ [0, 1] ∪ {φ}denote the reliability of the evidence where r = φ if and only if s = φ. Given some realizedstate θ, the reliability is drawn from some distribution Fθ . Let fθ denote its corresponding
density and define ν := f0 /f1 as the likelihood ratio. We assume that the likelihood ratio isstrictly decreasing in r, so that a higher r indicates that θ = 1 is more likely to be realized.
Note that the reliability summarizes all the additional information that subsequently becomes
accessible for the leader.
The irrational type, on the other hand, randomly picks a project to implement. For
simplicity, we assume that the irrational type chooses x = 1 with probability ω, regardless of
the realized state of nature. The structure behind this irrational type is left somewhat loosely
specified in order to allow for flexible interpretations. One interpretation is to regard this as
the one with extreme and ungrounded opinions. For instance, suppose that the leader canobserve some state-irrelevant signal on top of the evidence brought in by the follower. Uponobserving this signal, the irrational type firmly (and erroneously) concludes that one or theother state is realized.10 According to this interpretation, the difference in the type signifies
10

To be more precise, based on the observed signal, the irrational type believes that θ = 0 is realized withprobability 1 − ω and θ = 1 with probability ω, regardless of the realized state of nature. In this case, any
subsequent information has no value, and the project choice appears to be random. The rational type, on
the other hand, correctly understands that the signal contains no relevant information regarding the state ofnature, and hence do not update her prior.

9the difference in the ability to evaluate information. As another possibility, the irrational typecan also be interpreted as the one with strong preference biases. In this case, the irrational
type has a strong bias for implementing x = 1 (x = 0) with probability ω (1 − ω), andimplements her preferred project no matter which state is realized.

3.4

Payoffs

We employ the incomplete-contract approach where no binding agreements can be madebetween the leader and the follower ex ante. The fact that no binding agreements contingent
on the outcome can be made implies that both YL and YF are exogenously given. The
assumption is innocuous and bears no significance because, as we will see, our entire logic
and argument are independent of the values of YL and YF in a qualitative sense.11
The follower’s payoff is then given by vF + αx − c(e), where α ∈ R measures his bias
towards project x = 1. When α > 0, the bias reflects a pleasure from performing a newtask rather than an old routine task or from the very fact that his evidence is accepted (asacademic researchers derive sheer pleasure from their papers being accepted).12 A divergencein goals and objectives is the source of behavioral bias in our model, and we assume α ≥ 0throughout the analysis. The cost of effort is given by c where c0 > 0, c00 > 0, c0 (0) = 0 andlime→1 c0 (e) = ∞.
The (rational) leader also has somewhat biased preferences which drift apart from theorganization’s goal. More precisely, the leader is partially motivated by career concerns as
she privately benefits from holding a high reputation (of being the rational type), which could
lead to pay raises, promotions, job offers, or simply ego satisfaction. The leader’s payoff isthus given by vL + βmx,θ where β ∈ R+ measures the weight given to career concerns.
There are several possible ways to interpret this parameter. Our preferred interpretation,
which is more appropriate in the issue of leadership, is that β reflects the leader’s degree of11
A more important point in this sense is that no binding agreements contingent on the project choice (or,more precisely, its novelty) can be made ex ante. This situation is perhaps more easily justified in the realmof politics where binding agreements of almost any kind cannot be made between politicians and citizens ex
ante. Even in firms, however, it is extremely rare to write contracts contingent on each decision leaders make.
This is partly because most of those decisions are typically neither verifiable nor describable.
12
As we will see below, we focus on a situation where x = 1 is chosen only when the evidence is obtained
and submitted by the follower.

10

selfishness: with a larger β, the leader cares more about her own private benefits and lessabout the organization’s as well as the follower’s well-being. The leader becomes more selflessand works for the organization, rather than for her own sake, as β becomes smaller.

3.5

Timing

The timing of the model is summarized as follows:
1. The state of nature θ ∈ {0, 1} is realized.
2. The follower determines e ∈ [0, 1] and collects the evidence s ∈ {0, 1}.
3. The leader evaluates the submitted evidence and assesses its reliability r ∈ [0, 1] ∪ {φ}.
Based on this assessment, she chooses the project x ∈ {0, 1}.
4. The outside evaluator observes θ and x, and computes mx,θ .

4

Analysis

4.1

The optimal project choice

Since the irrational type behaves randomly, we only need to focus on the behavior of therational type (so whenever we say the leader, it refers to the rational type in what follows).
Let q(r) := prob{θ = 1 | r} denote the leader’s posterior belief about the realized state ofnature, which is obtained asq(φ) = 1 − π and q(r) =(1 − π)f1 (r)1−π=for q ∈ [0, 1].
(1 − π)f1 (r) + πf0 (r)1 − π + πν(r)One can see that under the maintained assumption, q(r) is strictly increasing in r ∈ [0, 1],
and hence there exists a well-defined inverse function r(q). Let Gθ (q) := Fθ (r(q)) for somegiven posterior q.
Given that the outside observer can only observe the project choice and the outcome, theposterior belief q(r) is a sufficient statistic for the leader’s problem. Given some q(r) = q,
the leader chooses x = 1 if and only ifq(YL + βm1,1 ) + (1 − q)βm1,0 ≥ qβm0,1 + (1 − q)(YL + βm0,0 ).

(1)

Letting yL := YL /β and normalizing, we can rewrite this as(2q − 1)yL ≥ q(m0,1 − m1,1 ) + (1 − q)(m0,0 − m1,0 ).
11(2)

Notice that since m0,0 > m0,1 and m1,1 > m1,0 , the right-hand side of (2) is strictly decreasing
in q. This implies that, as long as yL is sufficiently large, there is a (unique) interior solution,
denoted by p, such that x = 1 if and only if q(r) ≥ p. We shall hereafter assume that yL islarge enough to satisfy this.
As can be seen, the optimal project choice depends heavily on the evaluator’s posterior
belief mx,θ . To compute this posterior belief, define Qθ (p) := prob{x = 1 | θ, e, p} as theconditional probability that the rational type implements x = 1. The posterior belief mx,θ (p),defined as a function of p, is then obtained as
m0,θ (p) =µQθ (p)µ(1 − Qθ (p)), m1,θ (p) =.
µ(1 − Qθ (p)) + (1 − µ)(1 − ω)µQθ (p) + (1 − µ)ω

Define Mθ (p) := m0,θ (p) − m1,θ (p), which can be written asMθ (p) =µ(1 − µ)(ω − Qθ (p)).
(µ(1 − Qθ (p)) + (1 − µ)(1 − ω))(µQθ (p) + (1 − µ)ω)(3)

Assuming that there exists an interior solution, the optimal threshold, denoted by p∗ , mustsatisfyp∗ = ψ(p∗ ) :=yL + M0 (p∗ ).
2yL + M0 (p∗ ) − M1 (p∗ )(4)Among other variables, the optimal threshold depends on the effort level chosen by thefollower. Although we cannot in general rule out the possibility of multiple fixed points forsome given effort level, we suppose in the subsequent analysis that there exists a uniqueoptimal threshold, which is again the case when yL is sufficiently large (or, equivalently, β issufficiently small).13 Given this, the leader’s best response function is denoted as p∗ = ΦL (e).
We take p∗ as a measure of decisiveness, which determines the organization’s ability
to process information. For expositional clarity, we say that the leader is indecisive whenp∗ > 0.5, just decisive when p∗ = 0.5, and overly ambitious when p∗ < 0.5. It immediately
follows from (4) that the leader exhibits indecisiveness if and only if M0 + M1 > 0. The
following result establishes a sufficient condition for the emergence of indecisiveness.
Proposition 1 The leader exhibits indecisiveness, i.e., ΦL (e) > 0.5 if ω > e.
13

To see this, note that as β → 0 and yL → ∞, p∗ uniquely converges to one half.

12

Proof: See Appendix.
When less information is available within the organization, it is difficult to make theright change at the right time. Making a bold move in this environment proves to be risky
since it is more likely to be taken as reflexive of the leader’s own personal biases in tastes
or opinions. As a consequence, the status quo becomes the safer option for the leader andpersists over time. Generally speaking, the leader tends to exhibit indecisiveness when thefollower’s effort level is sufficiently low. Moreover, we can push this logic a bit further andshow that an exogenous decrease in e generally makes the leader less decisive, illustrating
critical interactions between the leader and the follower.
Proposition 2 ΦL (e) is decreasing in e.
Proof:

We need to show that, fixing p constant, an increase in e shifts ψ(p) downwards.

Notice that an increase in e has the same effect as a decrease in p. We can then apply Lemma
1 (in Appendix) to prove the proposition.
Q.E.D.
Figure 1 shows this graphically.14 A dotted line straight up at p∗ = 0.5 indicates thepoint at which the leader is just decisive, and anywhere right of this line is the region where
she exhibits indecisiveness. As the figure clearly illustrates, the leader indeed exhibits indecisiveness for a wide range of parameters. In what follows, therefore, we primarily focus on
the case where p∗ > 0.5 so that the leader exhibits some degree of indecisiveness. Notice that
this result draws clear contrast to Levy (2004) who shows that a decision maker with careerconcerns deliberately stays away from the status quo to signal her ability. Among otherthings, the most notable difference lies in the way the decision maker obtains information.
Levy considers a case where the decision maker differs in her ability to acquire informationand the type of reputation she looks at is with respect to this ability. In this case, ‘staying
with the prior’ reflects the lack of information which in turn reflects the lack of ability. In ourmodel, on the other hand, the decision maker differs in her ability to process and evaluate
14

For all of the figures that follow, we specify that F0 (r) = r(2 − r) and F1 (r) = r2 . Under this specification,
since f0 (r) = 2(1 − r) and f1 (r) = 2r, ν(r) = (1 − r)/r is indeed strictly decreasing in r as assumed.

13

information, and hence ‘staying with the prior’ does not necessarily signals her incapability.
This is especially so when less information is available since choosing the status quo is therule rather than the exception in this case.
[figure 1 about here]

4.2

The optimal effort

The follower’s motivation to collect information depends crucially on the leader’s decisiveness, as an indecisive leader cannot effectively utilize any acquired information. Given somethreshold, the follower’s problem is formulated as follows:³´c(e)max γe π(1 + G0 (p)(yF − 1)) + (1 − π)(1 − G1 (p))(yF + 1) + (1 − γe)πyF −,αµe∈[0,1]
where yF := YF /α. The first-order condition is given by(1 − π)(1 − G1 (p))(yF + 1) − π(1 − G0 (p))(yF − 1) =c0 (e),αγµ(5)For any given p, there is a unique e that can satisfy this as long as the left-hand side isnonnegative. Let e∗ = ΦF (p) denote the optimal effort as a function of the threshold p,
where e∗ = 0 if there exists no interior solution. The optimal effort level determines theorganization’s ability to acquire information.
The left-hand side of (5) reflects the marginal benefit of effort which reflects the follower’s
motivation to collect information. When α = 0 and the follower has no preference bias, his
motivation is maximized when the leader is just decisive, i.e., p = 0.5. In general, one cansee that the optimal effort increases with the leader’s decisiveness up to some point and thendecreases past that point.
Proposition 3 ΦF (p) is single-peaked and maximized at p̄ where p̄ = 0.5 if α = 0. If α > 0,then p̄ < 0.5.
Proof: ΦF (p) decreases with p if and only if−(1 − π)g1 (p)(yF + 1) + πg0 (p)(yF − 1) < 0 ⇔ ν(r(p)) <14(1 − π)(yF + 1).
π(yF − 1)(6)Since ν is strictly decreasing, ΦF must be single-peaked and there must exist some p̄ ∈ (0, 1)
at which ΦF is maximized. Note that p̄ = 0.5 when α = 0, and an increase in α lowers p̄.
Q.E.D.
By design, no additional information is necessary to implement the status quo project.
From the follower’s viewpoint, therefore, his effort could have some value only when theleader chooses to implement x = 1. After all, why would he have to spend time and effort
to collect information or agonize over coming up with new ideas if he knows that this input
will be ignored anyway? When the amount of information available within the organizationis endogenous and depends on the follower’s unobservable effort, it is imperative to keep his
motivation high enough. The leader’s decisiveness plays a crucial role in this sense.

4.3

Decisiveness and efficiency

The strategic dependence between the leader and the follower yields several efficiency implications. Before we move into the equilibrium analysis, we momentarily treat the leader’s
decisiveness as if it is exogenous and examine how a change in p affects the follower’s expected
payoff as well as the organization’s welfare.
We first consider the follower’s expected payoff to see what type of leader is desirablefrom the follower’s viewpoint. Generally, the follower prefers a more decisive leader because
she would pay attention to his information. As it turns out, the follower’s expected payoff ismaximized at a point where his effort level is maximized. When the follower is biased towards
x = 1 and hence p̄ < 0.5, he prefers a leader who is to some extent overly ambitious. This
result is fairly intuitive to understand. For a follower who places some value in implementing
x = 1 regardless of its outcome, it is desirable to have a leader who is willing to take chances.
Proposition 4 The follower’s payoff is maximized at p = p̄.
Proof: The follower’s payoff is maximized when, using the envelope theorem,
πg0 (p)(yF − 1) − (1 − π)g1 (p)(yF + 1) = 0.
By definition, this condition holds at p = p̄ (see (6)).
15(7)

Q.E.D.
Now consider how the organization’s welfare, measured by the expected value of theimplemented project, varies with the leader’s decisiveness. First, when α = 0 and the follower
has no preference bias, his motivation is maximized at p = 0.5. This level of decisiveness also
selects the project in the most efficient way, and hence the expected value is maximized at
this point. When α > 0, however, there arise a tradeoff between decision making and effort
provision. At p = p̄, the follower’s motivation is maximized, but this level of decisiveness isinefficient in that it chooses x = 1 too frequently. An increase in p towards one half improves
the project choice but at the expense of a decrease in effort. The expected value is therefore
maximized somewhere along the way. The following statement summarizes this result.
Proposition 5 The expected value of the implemented project is maximized at p = p̃ wherep̃ = 0.5 if α = 0. If α > 0, then p̃ ∈ (p̄, 0.5).
Proof: See Appendix.

5

Discussion

There are some innate attributes and environmental factors that are necessary to be aneffective leader, but those exogenous factors are hardly sufficient to grasp the entire picture.
To fully understand how leadership emerges or fades in an organization, we also need to
pay close attention to interactions among members of the organization, which calls for an
equilibrium analysis of decisiveness. An equilibrium of this economy consists of a pair (p∗ , e∗ )such that p∗ = ΦL (e∗ ) and e∗ = ΦF (p∗ ). Formally, the equilibrium level of decisiveness isgiven by a fixed point p∗ = ΦL (ΦF (p∗ )).15 The simple setup described above allows us to
conduct various comparative statics analyses which illuminate several key determinants ofdecisiveness and how a change in each of these factors influences the equilibrium outcome.16
This section discusses implications of each of those factors to shed light on an intricate andintertwined nature of decisiveness or, more broadly, leadership in general, especially in its
15

Since this is a continuous mapping from [0, 1] onto itself, the existence of at least one equilibrium isguaranteed.
16
For most of this section, we focus on cases where there is a unique interior equilibrium.

16

relation to the existing leadership literature. Although our motivation and approach differ
to a large extent, our main contentions and implications are closely in line with some of theleading views of this literature.

5.1

Transformational leadership: Burns (1978)

An emerging filed of leadership is what is called the transformational leadership theory.
Burns (1978) was one of the first to introduce the concept of transformational leadershipwhere transformational leaders offer ways that transcend their followers’ self-interests andshort-term goals. According to Burns, transformational leadership occurs when leaders andfollowers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. This notion of leadership draws clear contrast to the earlier view of transactional leadership which focuses moreon the tangible side of leadership.
The present framework offers an insight that has a close connection to transformational
leadership. The equilibrium analysis reveals that the leader’s decisiveness and the follower’s
motivation go hand in hand and influence each other. The way this mutual dependence
emerges in our model is through the diversification of responsibility. When the follower ispoorly motivated, he is less likely to bring in useful information or innovative ideas. Making
drastic changes from the status quo is then more likely to be taken as the leader’s idea whichreflects her own personal biases, and mistakes in this context are hence more costly for theleader. As a consequence, she is forced to be conservative and, in terms of the present model,
indecisive. This leads to an even further decline of the follower’s motivation, illustrating
a downward spiral into which an organization led by an indecisive leader often falls. The
contrast is clear when the follower is highly motivated and new ideas are abundant, which
creates an atmosphere of ‘doing something new’ in the organization. Mistakes (of making
unnecessary changes) are certainly inevitable in a situation like this, but the cost associatedwith them is not that significant because they may be due to the wrong information brought
in by the follower and hence less reflexive of the leader’s own biases. This process gives rise
to a virtuous cycle where with the leader becoming more decisive, the potential value of
information increases and so does the follower’s motivation.

17

Due to this complementary interdependence, a leader who happens to be decisive in one
occasion could easily exhibit indecisiveness in another. This could explain why traits theories
fail to find a set of innate attributes commonly possessed by leaders or why behavioral
theories fail to find a consistent pattern of behaviors that make leaders effective. Even when
we focus on a narrow aspect such as decisiveness, the workings of leadership are far-reaching
and intertwined. There is only so much we can learn from leaders’ observable traits andbehaviors, and we hence need to look carefully into the mechanism behind it.
This implication also sheds light on a classical issue of whether leaders can be made, rather
than are born. To put it short, our answer is that neither view is entirely correct, which isbasically consistent with the recent leadership literature. There are many independent factors
which influence and reinforce each other to make leadership more or less effective. Amongthem, the role of interpersonal interactions proves to be subtle and critical. We argue that noleader can produce effective leadership all by herself as good followers is a critical ingredientof it. This complementary loop gives rise to the intangible side of leadership which is noteasily captured by observable traits and behaviors.

5.2

Charismatic leadership: Conger and Kanungo (1998)

Another concept of leadership, which is closely related to transformational leadership, is what
is called charismatic leadership.17 One of the most influential works along this line is Conger
and Kanungo (1998), who isolate five key characteristics of charismatic leadership. Amongthem, the following three are of particular relevance to our analysis:18
1. Engages in unconventional behavior to achieve organizational goals.
2. Takes high risks and self-sacrifice for the sake of the organization.
3. Has a vision and the ability to articulate that vision.
17
The distinction between transformational and charismatic leadership is not particularly clear. Conger
and Kanungo (1987) explains that charismatic leadership is the most exemplary form that transformational
leaders could assume. Here, we do not aim to draw a line between the two concepts as it is clearly out of thescope of this paper.
18
The other two are sensitivity to the environment and sensitivity to member needs. The first refers to
the leader’s ability to recognize the environmental constraints including other members’ skills and abilities.
The second posits that the leader must exhibit sensitivity to other members’ needs and feelings and develop
mutual liking and respect.

18

The first point, that leaders engage in unconventional behavior to achieve organizational
goals, is the main theme throughout the paper, and we do not have much more to add atthis point. The remaining two characteristics are worth some investigation, and we attempt
to interpret their claims in our context.
Self-sacrifice
One important determinant of decisiveness is β which is the weight attached to the leader’scareer concerns. This parameter is clearly important because, when β = 0, the leader’s goalcoincides with the organization’s, which is to maximize the expected value of the project,and hence the project choice is always efficient. As β increases, though, the leader’s goal
gradually diverges from the organization’s, and the project choice becomes less efficient inexchange for her private gains in reputations. In short, the leader becomes more trustworthyas β approaches zero.
Formally, note first that the follower’s best response ΦF (p) does not shift in response toa change in β. We thus only need to focus on ΦL (e) to see its effect. With some algebra we
obtain∂ψ> 0 ⇔ M0 + M1 > 0.
∂βmeaning that an increase in β shifts ΦL upward if and only if M0 + M1 > 0. It seems naturalthat a leader whose first priority is on her own well-being cannot be effective, regardlessof whether she exhibits indecisiveness or not. If M0 + M1 > 0 and the leader exhibits
indecisiveness, an increase in β makes her even less decisive.19 The figure illustrates theeffect of an increase in β, indicating how a leader with strong ego preferences would lose her
decisiveness.
[figure 2 about here]
What is essential in this vein is trust for the leader, defined as a positive expectationthat another will not act opportunistically (Robbins, 2004). To be an effective leader, it iscertainly critical for the followers to feel that they are headed into the right direction and19

If M0 + M1 < 0 and the leader is overly ambitious to begin with, an increase in β makes her even more
ambitious. In either case, not surprisingly, an increase in β could only make the leader’s decision less efficient.

19

their interests are protected under her leadership. This inherently requires that the leader be
altruistic and benevolent, or at least do not abuse her authority to pursue her own interests.
An effective leader is the one who cares about the organization’s overall performances, rather
than her own private benefits, and hence the spirit of self-sacrifice is an essential requirement
for leaders of any kind to be successful.
VisionWhile trust for the leader is often touted as one of the most important aspects of effective
leadership, the notion of trust has many different dimensions as does the notion of leadership.
One dimension is, as described just above, the trust that the leader does not abuse her
authority for her own private benefits. Equally important, if not more, is another dimensionof trust, that is, the trust for the leader’s vision, often defined as the ability to predict the
future course of action that should be followed by the organization. In this present setup, therational type can be regarded as a leader with a vision because the irrational type is totally
incapable of correctly predicting the future. The trust for the leader’s vision is then partially
captured by the prior belief µ where the leader is more trustworthy when µ is higher.
We then ask the following question: are leaders with high reputations (for their vision)
more decisive? The effect of high reputations on ΦL (e) is in general ambiguous as it yields two
opposing effects. On one hand, leaders with high reputations have more to lose, consequently
making them more conservative and indecisive, especially when the amount of information isrelatively small. In our binary setup, on the other hand, high reputations (or low reputations
for that matter) are also established reputations which do not depend much on the content
of ex post information. Since the leader’s reputations are firmly secured, she could care lessabout her career concerns and hence be more decisive. Due to the interaction between these
two effects, it is not clear whether high reputations per se make the leader more decisive ornot.
Although its effect on ΦL (e) is not clear, an increase in µ also influences the follower’s
motivation as well, i.e., trustworthiness matters. More trust in the leader’s vision unambiguously enhances the incentive to collect information because it increases the probability that20

the acquired information is processed properly. When the follower is unsure of the leader’squalifications and does not trust her vision, the organization can acquire less information,
which yields an adverse effect on the leader’s decisiveness. We take this side of trust to bemuch more significant. This effect is normally strong enough, and an increase in the priorbelief µ is hence more than likely to improve the leader’s decisiveness. It is not just better
assessment skills that those with high reputations tend to possess, but also their high andestablished reputations per se that help the leader make the correct decision. The leader’shighly regarded credentials enhance the follower’s motivation, which in turn improves theleader’s decision making.
Figure 3 illustrates how more trust in the leader’s vision enhances the organization’s
ability to acquire and process information. In this particular example, an increase in µ
shifts ΦL (e) upwards and hence makes the leader slightly less decisive. This adverse effect is,however, more than offset by an increase in ΦF (p) so that the equilibrium level of decisivenessincreases. In this case, therefore, more trust for the leader’s vision significantly enhances theorganization’s overall efficiency as it improves both the ability to acquire information (anincrease in e∗ ) and the ability to process information (a movement of p∗ towards one half).
[figure 3 about here]

5.3

Other environmental factors

Besides those factors discussed thus far, there are also other environmental factors that
influences the leader’s decisiveness. Here, we raise those factors and offer our interpretationsof them.
Stability
One factor that proves to be crucial is the stability of the underlying environment. The
underlying environment is regarded as more stable, and fewer changes are expected when π
is closer to one. Since the status quo becomes more likely, an increase in π generally shiftsΦL (e) upwards, thereby making the leader less decisive. To see this, note that Qθ (p) =21

e(1 − Fθ (r(p))) and, holding p constant,
∂p
efθ ν
∂Qθ
= −efθ
=< 0.
∂π∂ππ(1 − π)ν 0(8)Since a decrease in Qθ increase Mθ , it follows from Lemma 1 that ΦL (e) shifts up in responseto an increase in π.
The follower’s motivation is also influenced by a change in π. It is easy to see from (5) thatan increase in π unambiguously decreases the optimal effort if yF > 1. This is again intuitive
because with fewer changes expected, the ex ante marginal value of the evidence naturally
becomes smaller: in fact, if yF > 1, there exists some π̄ ∈ (0, 1) such that the optimal effort
converges to zero as π → π̄. See figure 4 for how the stability of the environment adversely
affects the organization’ ability to acquire and process information.
[figure 4 about here]
Trustfulness
As a slightly different interpretation, consider the case of an academic journal where x = 0
is a rejection and x = 1 is an acceptance. The leader in this context is the editor who must
decide whether to accept a submitted paper, and the follower is the author who submitted
the paper.20 In this case, π reflects the editor’s prior belief that a submitted paper is of publishable quality where a low π reflects the author’s highly regarded academic reputations.21
We can then ask the following question: does the author’s high academic reputations help
the editor to make the right decision? The answer, in the light of the previous argument, isaffirmative in that the editor needs less convincing evidence (perhaps in the form of refereereports) to accept the paper when the author is highly regarded and π is relatively small andclose to one half.22
20
In this interpretation, s = φ may correspond to a situation where the submitted paper clearly does notmatch the standard of the journal and is summarily rejected.
21
When applied to the case of an academic journal, one may need to make one alteration to the baselinemodel since a rejection is normally not observable to outside parties, implying that m0,1 = m0,0 = µ. Thisdifference, however, would not change the substance of the argument.
22
When π goes below one half, an acceptance now becomes the status quo, and the totally opposite story
applies. In the case, the editor tends to accept too many papers.

22This line of reasoning may also explain why path-breaking papers – even those writtenby the very best of our profession – are sometimes rejected by those top journals. One of
the most remarkable stories is perhaps George Akerlof’s paper on ‘the market for lemons’
which best exemplifies how difficult it is to accept an unconventional, yet highly innovative,
paper.23 Refereeing is not an exact science in any discipline, and mistakes (wrongful acceptances and wrongful rejections) are bound to happen in either direction. The editorial process
becomes more conservative when editors care more about minimizing wrongful acceptances
than minimizing wrongful rejections. Granted that this is true, the present framework provides a mechanism that gives rise to conservatism in the editorial process. Since π reflects theeditor’s prior assessment relative to the standard of the journal, it is naturally very close to
one for some top journals. As a consequence, the editors of top journals are wary of accepting
bad papers that should not be accepted, and the fear of wrongful acceptances makes themhighly cautious and conservative in their acceptance decisions.
We can easily extend this argument to other contexts. In a broader scope, π is interpreted
as the leader’s prior belief about the follower’s ability to ‘make things happen.’ The same
argument then apples here: leaders need to be more trusting and more open-minded to new
ideas, so that they are flexible enough to change the course of action when necessary. The lackof flexibility or trust makes the leader less decisive and is hence costly for the organization.
Predictability
The cost of collecting the evidence partially reflects how difficult it is to predict a change
in the environment. This aspect is captured by γ where we say that the situation is lesspredictable when γ is smaller. The impact of a decrease in γ (or an increase in the cost of
information acquisition) is straightforward to understand as its only effect is to shift ΦF (p)downward. With less information available, a failure to make a change, when it is indeed
necessary, is often acceptable in less predictable situations. As a consequence, the leader
is more prone to stick with the safer option, which is the status quo, and the organization
loses its ability to adapt to changes in the environment. It is important to note that the23

Three journals had rejected his paper until QJE finally accepted it. See Gans and Shepherd (1994) for
more details as well as other remarkable instances of rejected classic papers.

23difficulty in making a timely change in less predictable situations arises not only because
useful information is harder to come by, but also because the organization is less adept atusing that information.
[figure 5 about here]

5.4

Ungrounded optimism

Since the leader is often indecisive and her decision is inefficient, optimistic beliefs aboutsome aspects of the underlying environment could improve the organization’s efficiency evenwhen they are totally ungrounded. In our model, there are two distinct ways through which
ungrounded optimism works. One way, which is more describable than the other, is throughthe optimistic estimation of such parameters as β, µ and π. For instance, ungrounded optimism about the leader’s selflessness (a low β) or vision (a high µ) enhances the follower’s
motivation while that about π (a low π) enhances the leader’s decisiveness. In any event,these optimistic beliefs enhances the organization’s overall efficiency to acquire and process
information.
Since the leader’s decisiveness and the follower’s motivation are complementary (in theregion where the leader exhibits indecisiveness), there possibly exists multiple equilibria. In
such a case, optimistic beliefs work in a less visible way. Suppose that there are two equilibria,(p∗A , e∗A ) and (p∗B , e∗B ), where p∗A < p∗B and e∗A > e∗B . Equilibrium A is the better equilibriumin that the leader is more decisive and the follower is more motivated. In the absence ofproper coordinating devices, however, it is not a given that the organization reaches themore efficient equilibrium. The sequential nature of our model would not necessarily resolve
this problem because what matters is the outside observer’s belief: if the outside evaluatorsomehow believes that the organization is at equilibrium B, then there is no reason for either
the leader or the follower to deviate unilaterally from it.24 This suggests that leadership may
emerge or fade by some invisible forces sustained through mythical beliefs.
24

To see this more precisely, note that the follower’s effort is not observable to the outside observer. The
follower hence cannot influence the observer’s belief by changing his effort level. Given this, the leader obviously
has no reason to change her decision rule.

24

6

Sources of indecisiveness: an alternative look

In statistical decision problems, wrongful rejections (choosing x = 0 when θ = 1) are referred
to as the type I error while wrongful acceptances (choosing x = 1 when θ = 0) are referred toas the type II error. Let E1 (E2 ) denote the probability of the type I (type II) error occurring,which is computed as
E1 = (1 − π)(1 − e(1 − G1 (p∗ ))),

(9)

E2 = πe(1 − G0 (p∗ )).

(10)

Now define the loss function L := α1 E1 + α2 E2 , where αi > 0 is the weight attached to thetype i error. The threshold that minimizes this loss function, denoted as p∗∗ , is then givenbyν(r(p∗∗ )) =α1 (1 − π)
.
α2 π

(11)

In the present model, from the organization’s viewpoint, the cost of the type I error is identicalto that of the type II error since the projects are symmetric. This means α1 = α2 , in whichcase p∗∗ = 0.5. As can easily be imagined, the organization minimizes the expected loss when
the leader is just decisive.
In this alternative view, indecisiveness emerges whenever α2 > α1 , i.e., the type II error
is more costly than the type I error from the leader’s viewpoint. In our model, the type IIerror tends to be more costly because, with no information, the rational type would choose
the status quo and hence be more vulnerable to the type I error. This conversely means thatthe irrational type is more prone to commit the type II error, and hence committing the typeII error leads to a great loss of reputations. In short, anyone can take an unconventional
path if it has a value in itself, as it is the case for the irrational type. It is, however, muchharder to do this at the right time, especially when things are less predictable. Because ofthis, the status quo emerges as the safer option, making the leader less willing to make a bold
and controversial move. Although we point out only one possibility, there are presumably
other possible channels though which indecisiveness emerges: anything that makes the typeII error more costly can be a source of indecisiveness.

25

When a person faces some decision to make, there are generally two ways to commit anerror: do nothing (when something should have been done) and do the wrong thing. If weinterpret that ‘do something’ is x = 1 and ‘do nothing’ is x = 0, the former corresponds
to the type I error while the latter to the type II error. Of course, there is a priori noreason to believe that one type of error is more problematic than the other as it certainly
depends on the underlying context. Despite this, many people seem to believe that there are
too many type I errors but not enough type II errors in decision making. This view is best
exemplified by Teddy Roosevelt – one of the preeminent leaders of the American history –who is quoted as saying “the worst thing that a leader can do is do nothing rather than do
the wrong thing.” This quote is compelling as it seems to reflect his belief that too manydecision makers are afraid of doing the wrong thing and rather content with doing nothing,suggesting that indecisiveness is a fairly common problem in organizations.

7

Conclusion

This paper explores how the presence of strong leadership influences the organization’s ability
to acquire and process information. The key concept is the leader’s decisiveness, which gives
us an angle to look into the diverse and vague notion of leadership. Our simple model
illustrates how leadership emerges or fade in organizations and how the leader’s decisivenessplays a part in it. We also argue, as one of our main contentions, that mutual trust between
leaders and followers is a critical ingredient of effective leadership, to the extent that it caneven be ungrounded. The importance of mutual trust suggests that an important missionthat leaders must fulfill is to convince that they are trustful as well as trustworthy. In fact,
CEOs seem to understand the importance of trustfulness and trustworthiness: experimental
evidence by Fehr and List (2004) shows that CEOs are considerably more trusting and exhibit
more trustworthiness than students. In future, works along this line are needed to further
inquire into the nature of leadership as a complicated interpersonal phenomenon.

26

Appendix
Proof of Proposition 1: We first show that ψ is strictly increasing in p as long as there
exists an interior solution. To show this, with slight abuse of notation, we treat ψ as if it isa function of M0 and M1 . The following result is convenient.
Lemma 1 ψ increases if both M0 and M1 increase.
Proof of Lemma 1: Total differentiation yieldsdψ =(dM0 + dM1 )yL + dM1 M0 − dM0 M1.
(2h + M0 − M1 )2(12)

A sufficient condition for dψ < 0 is
(dM0 + dM1 )yL + dM1 M0 − dM0 M1 > 0.

(13)

Since dM0 > 0 and dM1 > 0, this condition holds if yL ≥ M1 , which is equivalent toψ(p∗ ) ≤ 1.
Q.E.D.
This result implies that, to see how ψ responds to a change in p, we only need to focus on
its impact on M0 and M1 . Notice that both M0 and M1 are strictly increasing in p, because
m0,θ is strictly increasing while m1,θ is strictly decreasing in p. This means that ψ is strictlyincreasing in p.
By this result, the leader’s decisiveness must be bounded between ψ(0) and ψ(1). Given
that p > 0.5 > 1 − π, Qθ (p) = e(1 − Gθ (p)), andψ(0) = 0.5 +βµ(1 − µ)(ω − e),2yL (µ(1 − e) + (1 − µ)(1 − ω))(µe + (1 − µ)ω)

ψ(1) = 0.5 +βµ.
2yL (µ + (1 − µ)(1 − ω))

If ω > e, then ψ(0) > 0.5, which implies ΦL (e) > 0.5.
Q.E.D.

27

Proof of Proposition 5:

Let z(p) denote the probability of implementing the rightproject as a function of p, which is given by³´
z(p) = π + ΦF (p) (1 − π)(1 − G1 (p)) − π(1 − G0 (p)) .

(14)

Note first that, by definition, πg0 (0.5) = (1 − π)g1 (0.5), πg0 (p) > (1 − π)g1 (p) for p ∈ [0, 0.5)
and πg0 (p) < (1−π)g1 (p) for p ∈ (0.5, 1]. Note also that (1−π)(1−G1 (0)) < π(1−G0 (0)) and(1 − π)(1 − G1 (1)) = π(1 − G0 (1)) = 0. This implies that there must exist some q̄ ∈ (0, 0.5)
such that (1 − π)(1 − G1 (q̄)) = π(1 − G0 (q̄)), (1 − π)(1 − G1 (q̄)) < π(1 − G0 (q̄)) for p ∈ [0, q̄)and (1 − π)(1 − G1 (q̄)) > π(1 − G0 (q̄)) for p ∈ (q̄, 1). It is then easy to observe that for any
given ΦF (p) ≥ 0, z(p) ≤ π for p ∈ [0, q̄). Since z(q̄) = π by definition, we can focus on [q̄, 1]
to find the global maximum.
Differentiating with respect to p yields³´ dΦ ³´
F
z 0 (p) = ΦF (p) πg0 (p) − (1 − π)g1 (p) +(1 − π)(1 − G1 (p)) − π(1 − G0 (p)) .
dp

(15)

To show that p̃ ∈ (p̄, 0.5), we need the following two facts. First, as we have seen above,
πg0 (0.5) = (1 − π)g1 (0.5), πg0 (p) > (1 − π)g1 (p) for p ∈ [0, 0.5) and πg0 (p) < (1 − π)g1 (p)for p ∈ (0.5, 1]. Second, by proposition 3, dΦF /dp = 0 at p = p̄, dΦF /dp > 0 for p ∈ [0, p̄)and dΦE /dp < 0 for p ∈ (p̄, 1]. It follows from these that z 0 (p) < 0 for p ∈ [0.5, 1] andhence p̃ < 0.5. Given this result, it suffices to show that p̃ > p̄. First, this is the case ifp̄ ≤ q̄, because p̃ ≥ q̄. Now suppose that p̄ > q̄. In this case, for p ∈ [q̄, p̄], z 0 (p) > 0. Sincez 0 (0.5) < 0, this proves p̃ ∈ (p̄, 0.5).
Q.E.D.

References
Aghion, Philippe and Tirole, Jean, 1997, Formal and Real Authority in Organizations, Journal of Political Economy, 105, 1-29.
Burns, James M., 1978, Leadership, New York: Harper & Row.
Conger, Jay A. and Kanungo, Rabindra N., 1987, Toward a Behavioral Theory of Charismatic
Leadership in Organizational Settings, Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-64.
28

Conger, Jay A. and Kanungo, Rabindra N., 1998, Charismatic Leadership in Organizations,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crawford, Vincent P. and Sobel, Joel, 1982, Strategic Information Transmission, Econometrica, 50, 1431-51.
Dessein, Wouter, 2002, Authority and Communication in Organizations, Review of Economic
Studies, 69, 811-38.
Dewatripont, Mathias and Tirole, Jean, 1999, Advocates, Journal of Political Economy, 107,
1-39.
Fehr, Ernst and List, John A., 2005, The Hidden Costs and Returns of Incentives: Trust andTrustworthiness among CEOs, Journal of the European Economic Association, 2004, 2,
743-71.
Fiedler, Fred E., 1967, A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gans, Joshua S. and Shepherd, George B., 1994, How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic
Articles by Leading Economists, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 165-79.
Hermalin, Benjamin E., 1998, Toward an Economic Theory of Leadership: Leading by Example, American Economic Review, 88, 1188-206.
Kobayashi, Hajime and Suehiro, Hideo, 2005, Emergence of Leadership in Teams, Japanese
Economic Review, 56, 295-316.
Komai, Mana; Stegeman, Mark and Hermalin, Benjamin E., Leadership and Information,
American Economic Review, 97, 944-7.
Krishna, Vijay and Morgan, John, 2001, A Model of Expertise, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 747-75.
Kuhn, Peter and Weinberger, Catherine, 2005, Leadership Skills and Wages, Journal of Labor
Economics, 23, 395-436.
Levy, Gilat, 2004, Anti-Herding and Strategic Consultation, European Economic Review, 48,
503-25.
29

Levy, Gilat, 2007, Decision Making in Committees: Transparency, Reputation and Voting
Rules, American Economic Review, 97, 150-68.
Li, Hao, 2001, A Theory of Conservatism, Journal of Political Economy, 109, 617-36.
Morris, Stephen, 2001, Political Correctness, Journal of Political Economy, 109, 231-65.
Robbins, Stephen P., 2004, Essentials of Organizational Behavior (eighth edition), New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Rotemberg, Julio J. and Saloner, Garth, 1994, Benefits of Narrow Business Strategies, American Economic Review, 84, 1330-49.
Rotemberg, Julio J. and Saloner, Garth, 2000, Visionaries, Managers, and Strategic Direction,
RAND Journal of Economics, 31, 693-716.
Stogdill, Ralph M., 1974, Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research, New
York: The Free Press.
Szalay, Dezsö, 2005, The Economics of Clear Advice and Extreme Options, Review of Economic Studies, 72, 1173-98.
Takala, Tuomo, 1998, Plato on Leadership, Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 785-98.
Tamada, Yasunari and Tsai, Tsung-Sheng, 2005, Allocation of Decision-Making Authority
with Principal’s Reputation Concerns, mimeo.
Van den Steen, Eric, 2005, Organizaitonal Beliefs and Managerial Vision, Journal of Law,
Economics, and Organization, 21, 256-83.

30

1

Ω=0.2
Ω=0.4

Ω=0.6

e

0
0

0.5
p

Figure 1: The leader’s decisiveness Φ−1
L (p).
Note: vL = 1, µ = 0.4, π = 0.7.

31

1

1

v L =1v L =2
e

0
0

0.5
p

Figure 2: The effect of a decrease in vL .
Note: vF = 2, µ = 0.5, π = 0.7, ω = 0.4, γ = 1/3.

32

1

1

Μ=0.6

e

Μ=0.4

0
0

0.5
p

Figure 3: The effect of an increase in µ.
Note: vL = 1, vF = 2, π = 0.7, ω = 0.2, γ = 1/3.

33

1

1

e

Π=0.7

Π=0.8
0
0

0.5
p

Figure 4: The effect of an increase in π.
Note: vL = 1, vF = 2, µ = 0.5, ω = 0.4, γ = 1/3.

34

1

1

Γ=13
e

Γ=0.5

0
0

0.5
p

Figure 5: The effect of an increase in γ.
Note: vL = 1, vF = 2, π = 0.7, µ = 0.5, ω = 0.4.

351