????最近，一些《財富》（Fortune）500強企業(yè)的新任掌門人剛剛走馬上任，人們又開始對美國的新選舉年表現(xiàn)出空前高漲的熱情?？磥?，對完美領袖的追求似乎已成為時人割舍不掉的情結。

????奧巴馬講話的口氣如今聽起來更像是一位總統(tǒng)競選人，而不是在任的美國總統(tǒng)；梅格?惠特曼最近剛剛履新，出任惠普公司（Hewlett-Packard）CEO一職；而就在不久前，牢騷滿腹的雅虎公司（Yahoo）董事會終于驅逐了時任CEO的卡羅爾?巴茨。

????我們總是急于抱怨領袖的決策失誤，但是卻忽略了一個事實——很多情況下，正是我們自己把他們推上了領袖的寶座。所以，當他們所施行的策略觸犯到我們的最大利益時，我們不能每次都心安理得地聲稱自己上當了。是什么讓我們選擇了具有某些特定特質的領導人，之后卻發(fā)現(xiàn)所托非人？這其中一定存在某些原因。

????西北大學凱洛格商學院（Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management）的一項最新研究表明，事實上，人們往往會不自主地選擇傾向于傷害追隨者的人選來領導自己。凱洛格商學院教授羅伯特?利文斯頓經(jīng)過一系列的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，認為自己所屬的團隊面臨競爭壓力的人更傾向于選擇激進的鐵腕領袖，以帶領團隊抵御外部威脅。

????利文斯頓說：“想要一個成吉思汗型的領導人，本身并沒錯?！钡诂F(xiàn)實世界中，作為一個領導者，不僅需要抵御外敵，還必須體恤照顧下屬。

????然而不幸的是，我們選舉領導人的過程往往混淆了視聽，使人們忽略了候選人應該具備的重要品質，即團隊需求至上，比如他們是否會在面對下屬時換位思考等等。舉例來說，在選舉辯論中，論點往往會集中于能夠挑動選民情緒的社會熱點事件和話題。旨在激發(fā)聽者情緒反應的論述可以讓選民無暇顧及競選者是否具備作為領導者最重要的品質，比如在面對高壓現(xiàn)實局面中，他們會如何應對。

????企業(yè)繼任計劃專家及《為什么我們選不出好領導？》（Why Are We Bad at Picking Good Leaders?）一書的作者杰費里?科恩稱，一些企業(yè)正在重塑招聘流程，希望選出真正具備良好領導能力的領導者。一些公司的招聘人員開始接觸候選人曾經(jīng)領導過的員工和同事，試圖了解候選人如何激勵下屬，如何獲得團隊的共鳴，如何闡述自己的愿景，并將其轉化成其他團隊成員可以實現(xiàn)的具體目標。

????科恩曾幫助運輸公司瑞德（Ryder）改善其甄選領導者的程序。2009年，瑞德公司確定了選擇領導者的四項決定性標準：性格、判斷力、業(yè)績及交往能力。之后，該公司的管理人員精確地總結了鑒別候選人是否符合上述特質的方法?，F(xiàn)在，瑞德公司只會招收符合上述標準的領導者。

????包括瑞德在內的很多公司已經(jīng)開始通過面試過程中頗具挑戰(zhàn)性的問題或場景設置，來檢驗候選人是否具有快速反應的能力。瑞德公司執(zhí)行副總裁兼行政總監(jiān)格雷格?格林說：“這些精心準備的問題能夠破除某些候選人設置的障眼法，他們看起來魅力超群，實則平庸無能?！?/p>

????最佳招聘流程不僅能夠迫使候選人應對難題，還能夠讓招聘者探尋他們做出的各種反應背后的原因。他們思考的落腳點是什么？是什么讓他們做出這樣的反應？這些是否符合公司的宗旨？

????然而，在選擇領導人時，大部分人都相信自己的直覺。問題是，在很多情況下，我們都被直覺所蒙蔽?？贫髡f：“我們?yōu)槟硞€候選人的魅力和才智所折服，就會理所當然地認為他具備良好的判斷力，能夠做出有效的決策?！?/p>

????領導者的行為意義何在？事實上，人們產生上述混淆的部分原因正在于人們對這個問題的誤讀?！叭藗兺ǔＵJ為讓人感覺良好的人才適合做領導，”利文斯頓說。在研究中，他將這種現(xiàn)象解釋為對社會行為和親社會行為的混淆。

????擅長社交的人在團體中往往成為控制局面的主導者。他們通常直言不諱，平易近人往往能夠自然而然地成為團隊的領袖。利文斯頓稱，這些人具有支配型人格，常常凌駕于團隊至上。但團隊需要的最佳領袖人選還需要同時具備親社會行為，這樣才最符合團體利益，因為親社會行為的人通常不會極端強勢，他們會為了團體的利益，采取更加謹慎的行動。

????理想的領導者不僅能夠帶領團隊——不管是一家企業(yè)，還是一個國家——抵御外部競爭，保護團隊利益不受侵犯，而且能夠視團隊的需要高于一切個人需求。然而，這些優(yōu)秀的品質往往不易為人所察覺，反而會被諸如魅力、支配力、雄辯的口才等表象所掩蓋。但追根究底，決定權在于選舉者、招聘委員會或其他決策者。他們必須確保選拔過程能夠有效評估對領導來說真正重要的素質。畢竟，推選出一位不理想的人執(zhí)掌大權，我們自己也要承擔部分原因。

????譯者：李淑玉/汪皓

????The quest for an ideal leader seems to be on just about everyone's mind, as new Fortune 500 CEOs settle into their positions and the rest of the country ramps up for an election year.

????President Obama is already starting to sound like he's running for office, not just occupying one. Meg Whitman recently stepped into the CEO spot at HP (HPQ), and a disgruntled board at Yahoo (YHOO) recently ousted its CEO Carol Bartz.

????We are quick to complain about the choices that leaders make, yet in many cases, we pick these leaders. We can't justifiably claim that we were swindled every time we elect a leader who goes against our best interests, so there must be some reason we choose leaders with characteristics we later realize we don't actually want.

????In fact, we tend to elect people who are more inclined to behave in ways that can harm followers, a new study from Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management suggests. In a series of studies, Kellogg professor Robert Livingston found that group members who see their team in competition with another will elect aggressive, dominant leaders that can best position the group against an outside threat.

????"If you need Genghis Khan, there's no real risk in this behavior," says Livingston. But in the real world, leaders don't just defend against enemies; they must also take care of their people.

????Unfortunately, the process that we use to select leaders can gloss over the characteristics that put the group's needs first, such as empathy for group members. Debates during an election, for example, tend to highlight hot-button issues and talking points that play to constituents' emotions. Discussions that aim for an emotional response from listeners can cover up the most important qualities in our leaders, including how they respond, in real time, to high-pressure situations.

????Some companies are reshaping their hiring processes to select for traits that truly reflect good leadership qualities, says Jeffrey Cohn, a succession planning expert and author of the book Why Are We Bad at Picking Good Leaders? Members of hiring committees from some companies have begun to talk to a candidate's previous employees and colleagues to see how he or she motivates people, expresses empathy, and voices a vision that translate into specific, achievable goals for other members of the organization.

????Cohn has worked with transportation company Ryder to refine its leadership search process. In 2009, Ryder identified four criteria that were deal-breakers for leaders: character, judgment, results, and the ability to form relationships. Then, the company's management outlined exactly how to tell if people had those traits, and it now will only hire the ones that do.

????Ryder is one of several companies that have started to test candidates for their ability to think on their feet, posing difficult questions and situations during the interview process. Questions are structured in such a way that they cut through the smoke screen of a candidate that is charismatic but inept, says Greg Greene, executive vice president and chief administrative officer at Ryder.

????The best hiring processes not only force candidates to respond to tough questions, but probe the reasons behind those responses. What drives their thinking, what makes them tick, and does that match the mission of the company?

????But most of us want to follow our gut about picking good leaders. The problem is that our guts often trick us. "We get really seduced by someone's charm and intellect," Cohn says, "and we think that means they're going to be able to use good judgment and make effective decisions."

????Part of the confusion stems from a misunderstanding behind the meaning of a leader's behavior. "People think that people who make them feel good are good," Livingston says. In his research, Livingston describes this phenomenon as confusing social behavior with something called pro-social behavior.

????People who have good social behavior can control the dynamic in a room. They're often outspoken and affable. They tend to emerge naturally as leaders in a group setting. These people have dominant personalities, Livingston says, and they often put themselves before the group. But it is in a group's best interest to elect a leader who also demonstrates pro-social behavior, which takes much more careful consideration on behalf of the group, since pro-social people aren't usually the most dominant.

????The ideal leader would be able to defend a group, be it a company or a country, against outside competition, and also prioritize the group's needs above any individual needs. Those traits can hide under other, more obvious ones such as charm, dominance, and persuasive speech. But it's up to voters, hiring committees, and other decision makers to demand a selection process that reveals the leadership traits that actually matter. After all, if our vote puts a less-than-ideal person in power, part of the blame rests with us.