Want to climb the leadership ladder? Try debate training

For those looking to climb the corporate ladder in the U.S., here’s an idea you might not have considered: debate training.

According to a new research paper, people who learn the basics of debate are more likely to advance to leadership roles in U.S. organizations, compared to those who do not receive this training. One key reason is that being equipped with debate skills makes people more assertive in the workplace.

What the researchers say: “Debate training can promote leadership emergence and advancement by fostering individuals’ assertiveness, which is a key, valued leadership characteristic in U.S. organizations,” the lead author said.

The research is based on two experiments and provides empirical insights into leadership development, a subject more often discussed anecdotally than studied systematically.

“Leadership development is a multi-billion-dollar industry, where people spend a lot of money trying to help individuals emerge as leaders,” he added. “But the public doesn’t actually know what would be effective, because there hasn’t been a lot of causal evidence. That’s exactly what we provide.”

The paper was published in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

The researchers conducted two experiments. In the first, 471 employees in a Fortune 100 firm were randomly assigned to receive either nine weeks of debate training or no training. Examined 18 months later, those receiving debate training were more likely to have advanced to leadership roles, by about 12 percentage points. This effect was statistically explained by increased assertiveness among those with debate training.

The second experiment, conducted with 975 university participants, further tested the causal effects of debate training in a controlled setting. Participants were randomly assigned to receive debate training, an alternative non-debate training, or no training. Consistent with the first experiment, participants receiving the debate training were more likely to emerge as leaders in subsequent group activities, an effect statistically explained by their increased assertiveness.

“The inclusion of a non-debate training condition allowed us to causally claim that debate training, rather than just any training, improved assertiveness and increased leadership emergence,” the researchers explained.

To some people, increasing assertiveness might not seem like an ideal recipe for success in an organizational setting, as it might seem likely to increase tensions or decrease cooperation. But as the authors note, the American Psychological Association (to which Alicia and I belong) conceptualizes assertiveness as “an adaptive style of communication in which individuals express their feelings and needs directly, while maintaining respect for others.”

“Assertiveness is conceptually different from aggressiveness,” the lead author said. “To speak up in meetings or classrooms, people don’t need to be aggressive jerks. You can ask questions politely, yet still effectively express opinions. Of course, that’s different from not saying anything at all.”

Moreover, in the contemporary world where we all must compete for attention, refined communication skills may be more important than ever.

“Whether it is cutting filler or mastering pacing, knowing how to assert our opinions helps us sound more leader-like,” they added.

The research also finds that debate training benefits people across demographics: Its impact was not significantly different for men or women, for those born in the U.S. or outside it, or for different ethnic groups.

However, the findings raise still other questions about how firms identify leaders. As the results show, individuals might have incentive to seek debate training and other general workplace skills. But how much responsibility do firms have to understand and recognize the many kinds of skills beyond assertiveness, that employees may have?

“We emphasize that the onus of breaking leadership barriers should not fall on individuals themselves,” the lead author emphasized. “Organizations should also recognize and appreciate different communication and leadership styles in the workplace.”

He also notes that ongoing work is needed to understand if those firms are properly valuing the attributes of their own leaders.

“There is an important distinction between leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness,” he explained. “Our paper looks at leadership emergence. It’s possible that people who are better listeners, who are more cooperative, and humbler, should also be selected for leadership positions because they are more effective leaders.”

My take: There are two issues here: encouraging “speak up” in organizations and more broadly, “what is a leader anyway?”

Debate training is probably a good way of encouraging the former, and as such it may be that all organizations need to provide it for all of their staff. The encouragement of employees’ ability to speak up in the face of bullying, bad leadership or simply getting ideas across is a vital part of any successful firm’s (or government department’s) credo.

In of itself, it has nothing to do with “leadership.” Good leadership (except in a crisis situation) involves the ability to motivate, to encourage, to enthuse followers. To make them feel that you care about their wellbeing and not just their output.

Recent research has shown that all leaders have a certain subset of genes which drives them to want to become leaders. They are more likely to be not only leaders but also assertive and, often, bullying (the bully-leader).

Having these genes does not make you a good leader, that is learned in childhood by the way you were treated as a child together with good role modelling by your parents. The combination of genetics and good experience makes a good leader.