new technology has before we blindly commit to automation. For effective leadership to emerge, one necessary condition is that any future leader is able to offer an identity that can be trusted. It is the presence of trust that makes people voluntarily engage in an open and co-operative relationship with the leader. It is only when relationships are characterized by open-mindedness and collaborative behavior that the influence of an effective leader can kick in. Put simply, if the actor placed in the leader role is not trusted, no leadership can emerge.
Being wise, not smart
So, how do algorithms fare in this respect? The late Peter Drucker once noted that “the computer makes no decisions; it only carries out orders. It’s a total moron, and therein lies its strength. It forces us to think, to set the criteria. The stupider the tool, the brighter the master has to be – and this is the dumbest tool we have ever had.”53
If Peter Drucker’s wisdom proves still to be true today, then we need to worry, because a potential leadership disaster may be circling above our heads. If algorithms move into a leadership role and fulfil the tasks dealing with a rapidly changing world, then a problem is likely to occur. That problem will center around whether or not algorithms do possess the skills to acquire influence to lead others. After all, leaders today need to be influential as they have to develop truly global organizations that operate effortlessly across borders. To achieve such influence, scholars have argued that a sense of wise leadership is needed.54 Are algorithms capable of doing so? If they are not, then we may have made algorithms appear to be wiser than they really are. And if this is the case, we need to be more careful in our assessment of how and when algorithms can be used in matters of authority.
Building on this logic, an important question to address is whether algorithms can really be wise while not being human? Again, research can help here. What we know so far, is that studies have shown that people perceive machines in general, and algorithms more specifically, as non-human. We perceive them this way for the simple reason that we are unable to attribute a “complete mind” to a machine.55 We do not consider machines and algorithms to possess the fully-fledged emotional (experiential) and thinking (agency) capabilities of humans. You may ask yourself whether it is necessary that machines need to possess the entire range of human emotions and cognitions for them to assume the role of leaders. Well, understanding that people only follow leaders if they perceive them to be legitimate, and that legitimacy is inferred from our perceptions of whether someone is wise, fair and mindful, then it is indeed necessary.
Research in psychology shows that – as humans – we only consider someone or something to have a mind when we can attribute both agency and experience to them.56 As algorithms are perceived to be limited in their abilities to show empathy or even understand the true meaning of human emotions, we look at them as not having a complete mind. Furthermore, if we consider someone else not to have a complete mind, and the ability to recognize and understand emotions, it is safe to assume that we also do not want this other one to make ethical choices on our behalf. If this is the case, then this consequence of not being able to make ethical choices obviously complicates the idea of algorithms taking up any leadership position. Leaders are expected to serve our interests and make the appropriate decisions to do so.
So, this should be the end of the story and algorithms should simply not move into leadership roles.
Right?
The leadership of today will not be the leadership of tomorrow
Maybe it is not the end of the story, but rather a new beginning. If we listen to popular media, business press and visionary keynotes, algorithms may still be in the leadership game – maybe even more than ever. Indeed, despite science identifying several important limitations that impede algorithms from taking up decision-making responsibilities, this has not prevented discussion on whether leadership by algorithm should still occur. The idea that algorithms can run organizations is not one that is dead and buried, but rather alive and kicking.
How then can this discussion about automated leadership survive and even be envisioned as the future leadership model? One possible reason may be that this leadership-by-algorithm hype in essence indicates a frustration with today’s (human) leadership. As a result, business and society at large may be looking for different forms of leadership. So, it seems likely that we are looking for a different kind of wisdom in our leaders of tomorrow. And, that kind of new wisdom could well be provided by an algorithm.
What I am saying is that we may have entered an era where we do not consider it necessary for our future business leaders to possess the kind of wisdom that we so dearly attribute to humans. Rather, it may be that we define the wisdom for our future leaders in terms of other attributes and skills. It could well be that we are looking for a kind of leadership that is best equipped to provide the most accurate and, at the same time, fastest decisions. If we want those decision-making qualities to be reflected in our future leaders, then it should not be a surprise that we are ready to embrace the idea of leadership by algorithm. After all, isn’t it the case that leaders able to make fast and accurate decisions should also be able to best manage a volatile business environment?
Interestingly, when we look at leadership literature, scholars in the past have portrayed good leadership as those who “make good decisions in a timely way.”57 We know that leaders have to make decisions on a daily basis. We also know that those decisions reveal important social consequences that can benefit or harm the organization and its employees.58,59 For these reasons, today’s focus in the digital era may be more on selecting leaders who are able to deal with data in the most optimal way. And, subsequently, we recognize suddenly the beauty of an algorithm as a likely candidate to make decisions and, hence, lead.
If we move from our theoretical exercise above and on to what we see in practice, we may find some evidence in favour of leadership by algorithm. The one thing that is not going unnoticed is that jobs are increasingly being automated, with algorithms integrated into decision-making processes. This trend could be interpreted as a signal that a new kind of automated leadership may well be on its way.
And, why should this be? Well, the faster acting, more accurate and consistent self-learning algorithms become, the more likely it could be that humans will gradually transfer the power to lead to those same algorithms. Today’s reality is that companies operate in complex and volatile business environments where a need for faster and more accurate decision-making is increasingly emerging. To be able to deal with this need, people begin to seek a new kind of leader to get the job done. This new kind of leader seems to be recognized as one that is automated, thinks rationally and, hence, offers a sense of accuracy and precision to provide the most optimal choice in any kind of situation.
Are we ready to accept?
At this moment, you may wonder whether our need and desire for this kind of new leader is not simply wishful thinking. On one hand, humans surely would not so easily transfer the power and influence of their leaders to an automated entity. On the other hand, maybe we are too sentimental about these questions. It is this emotional reaction that prevents us from turning leadership as we know it today into a more optimal form that may well be less human.
After all, from a rational point of view, we should do anything possible to optimize our way of doing business. Such efforts, without a doubt, should also include thinking about how we can run our organizations and make decisions in better, more optimized ways. If we are serious about thinking in a rational fashion about how we want to approach the future of work, it should only be a matter of time before automated leadership will happen.
Some research actually suggests that people today are ready to accept this idea. A 2019 study by Logg, Minson and Moore examined the attitude of humans towards the judgments and advice offered by algorithms. They arrived at some powerful conclusions.60 The authors concluded the following: “Our studies suggest that people are often comfortable accepting guidance from algorithms, and sometimes even trust them more than other people.
