Five important things evidence tells us about successful leadership
New research reveals leadership success relies on environment, relationships and inclusion – not individual characteristics or style
Every organisation wants effective leaders, yet despite billions spent annually on leadership development, many businesses still struggle with poor engagement, sluggish innovation and resistance to change. The cost of ineffective leadership continues to impact productivity, talent retention and bottom-line results. But what if our fundamental assumptions about what makes a good leader are flawed? What if focusing solely on developing individual leadership qualities is missing the point entirely? A comprehensive research review has revealed some surprising insights that challenge traditional thinking about leadership and point to more effective approaches for developing leadership capability across organisations.
The review, commissioned by the Australian and New Zealand School of Governance (ANZSOG) in collaboration with the Queensland Public Service Commission, has revealed significant shifts in how leadership science answers fundamental questions about what makes successful leaders. The research review, titled Relational leadership: an approach to public service capability development, was conducted by a team of UNSW Business School academics from the Business Insights Institute, including Dr Bradley Hastings, Professor Shayne Gary, Professor Christopher Jackson, Dr Christian Criado-Perez, Ann Cahill, Batoul Hodroj, and Giovanni Cunico.
The research review analysed over 40 research papers and included extensive stakeholder interviews and workshops to understand contemporary leadership approaches and how leadership practices in the public sector can be improved to meet contemporary challenges.
1. The traditional model of leadership is outdated
Traditional perspectives that revolve around individual leaders and their qualities are no longer supported by evidence. Despite decades of trying to identify the perfect combination of leadership traits and characteristics, research has consistently failed to find a reliable formula for leadership success. The research found that intelligence, which showed the strongest correlation with leadership success, only accounts for 4% of the variation between successful and unsuccessful leadership. As the researchers note, “evidence supporting the idea that leadership is an ‘individual quality’ is slim.” This challenges the common practice of attributing organisational success or failure primarily to those at the top.
The research reveals that even historically consistent leadership roles show little evidence of common qualities among successful leaders. “One example is the role of the President of the United States, a job that, since 1789, is considered one of the most consistent and unchanging leadership positions available. Here, both social scientists and historians agree on the most successful presidents – Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt; however, detailed studies have failed to agree on a set of common qualities among them,” the authors explained.
Read more: Goals, pivots and passion: A CEO’s leadership lessons
For business leaders, this means moving away from the ‘hero leader’ mindset and recognising that effective leadership emerges from how people work together rather than individual brilliance. The evidence suggests organisations should stop searching for perfect leadership candidates and instead focus on creating environments where leadership can emerge naturally throughout the organisation. This requires a fundamental shift in how we think about leadership development – moving from individual skill building to fostering collaborative capabilities across teams and networks.
2. Leadership emerges through relationships
The research revealed that significant acts of leadership occur through interactions between organisational members at all levels, often in unexpected places and ways. For example, when researchers asked organisational participants to identify who contributed most to leadership and success, they rarely pointed to those in charge. Instead, leadership emerged across all spans of hierarchies and contexts, with frontline workers and junior team members often providing crucial leadership in solving specific problems and driving innovation.
“Studies of organisational change show that successful transformation is rarely led and planned from the top. Instead, change that works requires those who are closest to organisational processes to contribute their ideas and innovations,” explained the research authors, who implied that the implications of these findings extend beyond simply encouraging more collaboration.
Rather, leaders need to fundamentally rethink how leadership operates in their organisations. Instead of trying to drive change and innovation from the top down, focus on building strong relationships and networks that enable leadership to emerge organically where it’s needed most. This means creating formal and informal opportunities for staff at all levels to contribute ideas, take initiative, and exercise leadership when their expertise is relevant. The evidence consistently shows that better outcomes emerge when leadership is viewed as a collaborative process distributed throughout the organisation rather than a top-down directive from designated leaders.
3. Context matters more than character
The study found that about 83% of the difference between great and average leaders was explained by situational factors rather than individual characteristics. This challenges the common belief that great leaders succeed because of their inherent qualities or leadership style. Instead, their effectiveness appears to depend primarily on how well they adapt to and work within their specific context.
“One problem with the traditional conceptualisation of leadership – as a set of qualities of individual leaders – is that this perspective has generally presented a single, static destination of leadership that applies in all contexts,” the researchers explained. Looking more broadly, recent insights have identified four distinct leadership contexts that require unique and separate approaches: managing (individuals that direct processes or small units), relational leadership (where groups collaborate for impact), systems leadership (leading complex systems), and systems stewardship (where governance teams focus on long-term thriving and sustainability).
Read more: How do you show leadership in volatile times?
This multi-dimensional view of leadership represents a significant shift from traditional approaches. “There are times when leaders need to take charge and decide a course of action, and there are times when the future needs to be discovered collectively. There is also a big difference between leading small teams and leading across organisations,” noted the researchers, who suggested leaders need to become adept at recognising these different contexts and adjusting their approach accordingly.
This means moving away from rigid leadership models or trying to emulate a particular leadership style. Instead, focus first on understanding the specific context you’re operating in – the complexity of the situation, the needs of the team, the organisational culture, and the desired outcomes. Then determine the most appropriate leadership approach for those circumstances. The evidence suggests that this contextual flexibility is far more important for leadership success than any particular set of leadership traits or behaviours.
4. Psychological safety drives performance
The research highlighted the critical role of psychological safety in enabling effective leadership throughout organisations. This concept goes beyond simple trust or open communication – it represents a shared belief that team members can take interpersonal risks without fear of negative consequences. This type of environment is crucial for innovation, learning, and the emergence of natural leadership at all levels.
“Psychological safety allows for staff to demonstrate openness and transparency as these characteristics are valued, and work can be scrutinised in a positive and consultative fashion,” said the researchers, who explained that psychological safety emerges when “honesty, feedback, and risks are acceptable in the workplace.” Importantly, a climate of psychological safety is “aggregated from the organisation’s members and their beliefs” – but this type of environment doesn’t happen by accident; it requires conscious effort and consistent modelling from formal leaders.
The research identified specific actions that help build psychological safety. “Some examples of how leaders can develop their ability to promote psychological safety within their team include explicitly inviting input from others, encouraging others to share risky or experimental ideas, modelling vulnerability by admitting to their own mistakes or lack of knowledge/skills in certain areas, and setting up opportunities for teams to practise new knowledge and skills in safe environments before trialling them in high stakes environments,” the research review said.
For leaders, creating psychological safety should be a top priority. This means moving beyond superficial encouragement to speak up and instead building it into the fabric of how work gets done. Start by explicitly inviting input in meetings, publicly acknowledging your own mistakes and knowledge gaps, and creating low-stakes opportunities for people to experiment with new ideas. When people truly feel psychologically safe, they’re more likely to contribute ideas, take initiative, and exercise leadership in ways that benefit the entire organisation.
5. Diversity requires structural change
While many organisations focus on individual leadership development to increase diversity, the research showed that this approach alone is insufficient. Despite improvements in leadership practices around fairness and inclusion, structural barriers continue to prevent diverse talent from advancing into leadership positions. This disconnect points to a need for more fundamental changes in how organisations approach diversity in leadership.
To illustrate, the research identified several systemic barriers in organisations, including a lack of mentoring and role models for people from under-represented groups, exclusion from informal networks of communication, stereotypical ideas of what roles and responsibilities diverse groups might want to be a part of, a lack of assignment of challenging work opportunities to develop individual talents, and underplaying the importance of allocating time for non-work commitments.
Subscribe to BusinessThink for the latest research, analysis and insights from UNSW Business School
Informal networking practices can be particularly problematic. “By nature, these informal networks can be exclusive due to their lack of transparency and accessibility. Informal networking that is not inclusive may have a detrimental impact on leadership effectiveness,” the authors explained. This extends to seemingly minor issues like networking events that don’t consider care responsibilities or cultural considerations.
For leaders, this means taking a hard look at systemic barriers in their organisations rather than relying solely on leadership development programs or diversity targets. Focus on creating structural changes that enable diverse leadership to emerge naturally – this might include formalising networking and mentoring opportunities, ensuring flexible work arrangements at all levels, and examining how work assignments and development opportunities are allocated.
The UNSW Business Insights Institute delivers economic and business insights, research, and methods to business and government. Using a program-based approach consisting of Knowledge Hubs and Research Labs, the Institute helps industry partners solve complex challenges by linking them to academics and providing them with access to novel research insights. For more information, please contact Dr Christian Criado-Perez, Insights Associates at the UNSW Business Insights Institute.