7 Myths of Leadership in Business

Rob Bogosian
Florida Atlantic University

Abstract

The Seven Myths of Leadership in Business provides managers with

information to help lead in a complex world where platitudes have a very
limited place. Managers must get to know their direct reports so they can be
effectively guided, supported and developed. Managers must also be aware that
employees closely watch everything that they do and say. They form their
collective manager brand on behavior perceptions, not statements. It is for this
reason that managers must self-reflect first to be certain that their
declarations match their actual demonstrated and closely observed behaviors.

Introduction
I recently Googled “leadership definition” and discovered that there are
one billion, one hundred twenty million (1,120,000,000) results. With so
many definitions it is no wonder that so many leaders can recite the meaning
of leadership. Actually, after working with thousands of first line, middle and
senior level leaders around the world in many of the most well-reputed
companies, many leaders seem to have the right recipe for good leadership.
When asked, they often tell me in no uncertain terms what it means, what it
doesn’t mean, what is true of all good leaders, what they should do and not
do, how to handle challenging situations, how to motivate employees, how
to handle performance gaps, how to increase engagement. I started to hear
so many self-proclaimed truths that I began tracking them. Eventually the
list of truths was so extensive that I have to put on my research hat and begin
a thematic analysis.
Simultaneously, I began to catalogue the organizational issues and
challenges that I was hired to address. So, it seemed only logical to compare
the leadership truths list to the organizational issues list. In a short time, I
realized that if the truths were actually demonstrated in the real work world,
the organizational issues would be absent, not present. How could this be?

28 Rutgers Business Review Spring 2020

7 Myths of Leadership in Business

Were the leaders questioned actually giving me their wish lists? Did they
really believe that their declarations were in fact true?
I do not believe that managers are in denial about their reality nor are
they insidious. There is a great deal of pressure for managers to perform, to
achieve results while working in very challenging circumstances and while
the world outside the organization’s four walls are constantly moving and
changing. Add to that an abundance of internal structural changes, mergers,
acquisitions, dispositions, voluntary and involuntary turnover, constantly
changing client demands and priorities and it is easy to see how leaders
attempt to make sense of their world by claiming that at least part of it, their
leadership world, is stable, reliable and certain.
But there was something odd about the leadership truth themes. They
were not truths at all. As a matter of fact, they were actually myths. The
organizational issues presented could only mean one thing: the leadership
truths were not practiced well or not practiced enough. They were absent to
the extent that the organizational issues described were blatant and required
external support to help correct them.
This article is about the 7 most common “truths” expressed by leaders
around the world that are actually myths. The article is organized in sections
and each one is devoted to one Myth. In each section, I will explain the myth,
why I believe it is a myth, what is likely to happen in an organization if it is
alive and well. I will then characterize the myth as truth in leadership
behavior terms. I will describe the organizational characteristics that should
occur when the myth becomes a reality, how to get to the desired place and
how to stay there.
The article will help leaders identify the signs of trouble for each myth
and how to make the Myth become a Truth, how to test it and how to sustain
it in the long term.
The seven Myths are listed below and then described in detail in each
section.

The Seven Myths of Leadership in Business:

Myth #1: Manager Should Have All the Answers

Myth #2: Employees are Our Most Valuable Asset
Myth #3: There Is No Such Thing as A Dumb Question
Myth #4: We Have an Open-Door Policy
Myth #5: I’m Always Open to Feedback
Myth #6: Nice Leaders Finish Last
Myth #7: Work/Life Balance Is Important

Rutgers Business Review Vol. 5, No. 1 29

 7 Myths of Leadership in Business

Each myth is described below in detail.

Myth #1: Manager Should Have All the Answers

Managers may think they should have all the answers but in reality, they
should not. It is reasonable for managers to be expert problem-solving
facilitators but unreasonable for them to have answers to every problem that
comes their way. This seems obvious and for some leaders it is. It is quite a
burden to carry this expectation on one’s shoulders. Beneath the surface of
this burden is the performance pressure leaders face at work. The work world
is too complex for any one person to possess the knowledge required for
complicated problem solving. I have worked with too many managers who
have trouble separating their leader identity from work reality. The
expectation is born out of fear and self-protectionism. The logic is simple, “If
I prove that I am the arbiter of never-ending valuable knowledge, then my
position is essential to this organization.” If the root of the faulty logic is self-
protectionism, then organizations must work to remove the perception of
threat which encourages this syllogism in the first place. When leaders
believe that knowledge demonstration is power, they will assert it without
listening and learning from others. What organization’s need, especially in
the Digital Economy is rapid knowledge sharing and encouraging others to
participate in the idea generation process. Values based leadership can
achieve this goal. For example, if organizations emphasize Knowledge
Sharing and Speaking Up as core values and, define it, explain what it means
to every leader and why it is critical, knowledge sharing and upward voice
behaviors can become a reality. Values based leadership is not an HR
function, it is a human function that should be practiced in every business
area. For example, working with leaders in one global financial services
organization on values-based leadership showed that it can work. In a
strategic development workshop, leaders were asked to personally describe
the value of speaking up and knowledge sharing. Specifically, they were asked
to state what it meant to them, what it would mean to the team members,
clients and colleagues and what every Associate could expect from them as a
demonstration of living these core values every day. 1 The exercise changed
the views of many leaders when they described a time when this value was
either threatened or taken away from them. At that point, Associates could
identify with the values both emotionally and rationally. For their
constituents, it became real and more than simple hyperbole. From that
point forward, the workforce could commit to it and live it at work.
The next Myth is one that I hear too often. It is a very popular platitude
and it should be a reality in every organization.

30 Rutgers Business Review Spring 2020

7 Myths of Leadership in Business

Myth #2: Employees are our most valuable asset

I hear this platitude in many organizations and I believe that it is well
intended. However, when I leave the C-Suite and take the elevator down a
few floors, look at data analytics from Engagement Surveys and Exit
Interviews, I get a completely different picture. I see that engagement scores
are inconsistent, good in some areas and low in others. Exit interview data
from hundreds of employees who terminated regrettably from 24 companies
in 8 different industries reveal that manager relationships are the number
one cause of turnover. More specifically, employees who voluntarily resigned
commonly described work experiences as “underutilized and
underappreciated.” So, if “people are our most valuable asset” then we would
hear a different story. Managers can demonstrate that people are the most
valuable asset with some essential practices described below:

1. Develop strong relationship with each of your direct reports. Hosting

frequent one-to-one meetings where your direct report’s drive the
content and you LISTEN and encourage dialogue. You can do this by
suspending judgment and facilitate any problem solving or innovation
conversation rather than tell your direct reports what to do and how
to do it. The content should not be the usual project updates that you
receive from your employees. I suggest (meeting) content related to
the employee’s work and relationship experiences both of which
impact overall performance.

2. Use the “20/80 Rule.” You give your views and opinions 20 percent of
the (one:one interaction) time and listen and encourage dialogue 80
percent of the (one:one interaction) time. Practicing the 20/80 Rule
successfully assumes that you and your direct reports operate with
trust. It also demonstrates that you are interested in your Associate’s
views and opinions and that you believe that their voice has merit.
You must believe this in your head and heart. You cannot fake your
way through this action.

3. In One:One meetings, ask your direct reports two questions:

a. about what parts of your work do you feel strongest?
b. with what parts of your job do you struggle?
The goal is to learn as much about your employee’s work experiences
as possible without judgment and jumping to solutions. This data will
help you understand the level of job satisfaction for each of your direct
reports. You may not have the full picture after one or two meetings,

Rutgers Business Review Vol. 5, No. 1 31

 7 Myths of Leadership in Business

but using this line of inquiry is likely to encourage voice and

interaction.

4. During large scale meetings, if you are a public company, do not say,
“our purpose is to maximize shareholder value” or any other related
statement unless everyone in the room is a shareholder. Your
employees are interested in their own well-being and they want to
know that they matter to you. The Shareholder value statement
usually sends the opposite message. In one all-hands employee
meeting, the CEO of a public company talked at length about
increasing shareholder value and dividends and later in his speech
announced the removal of filtered water coolers as part of an expense
reduction process. Needless to say, this announcement ran through
the Employee Culture like wild fire. The Employee Culture concluded
that dividends are more important than filtered water for employees.

5. If you are celebrating an achievement, do not provide “Lunch or

breakfast” with a C-Suite member. This might be a nice gesture but
could be very anxiety provoking to the point where it is perceived as a
punishment. Instead, offer a gift card so that each celebrated
Associate can decide for themselves how to enjoy the gift.

This list could go on but I will stop here. If you try even 2 of the 5 practices,
you are likely to change the perception of Associate value. Everyone will
know that “Employees are the most valued asset” when your ASSOCIATES
make the statement more than management.

Myth #3: There is no such thing as a dumb question

This statement is usually made when leaders want input from group
members and they get none. The silence can be deafening. What holds
employees back? In a nation- wide survey of 400 middle managers, 43% of
respondents said they (occasionally) withhold information from their
manager. What causes this silence? My research shows that futility is one
primary reason that employees withhold information. This perception is
rooted in cynicism. Employees who have often tried to voice their views and
ideas with no feedback or acknowledgment assume that their voice has no
merit and that there is no real interest at all. The futility perception is quickly
socialized among the Associate culture and becomes a fact. As a result,
employees respect this socialized norm and stop contributing. If futility
causes silence, what prevents managers from listening and seeking input
from employees? Studies have shown that leader humility is linked to

32 Rutgers Business Review Spring 2020

7 Myths of Leadership in Business

employee voice.2 Humble leaders are more open-minded to others views and
opinions, they appreciate employees’ contributions and model open learning
practices that encourage voice behaviors. On the other hand, leaders who
harbor self-doubt are shown to avoid upward voice behavior as a method of
ego protection.3
Discounting is the most common way managers (inadvertently) shape
this silence response.4 Discounting can be verbal, non-verbal and structural.
Verbal Discounts can be as simple as a sigh, or more blatant such as, “I don’t
think that can work” or “management will never go for that” or perhaps a
humor laden Discount such as, “what are you smoking…” Non-verbal
Discounts can be subtle such as an eyebrow raise in response to a proposal,
idea or viewpoint. Verbal Discounts convey a message that the idea or
viewpoint is substandard and can threaten the contributor’s self-esteem and
cause retaliatory action to preserve one’s dignity and sense of self-worth.
Structural Discounts are physical in nature. For example, executive dining
rooms, executive parking spaces, sub-standard employee common areas are
all Structural Discount examples that convey the message, “there is difference
between you and us (Executives).” They all convey a put-down message that
can discourage participation and organizational commitment among the
employee culture.
Working against this Discount phenomenon requires a (management)
mindset shift from “manager as superior knowledge holder” to “manager as
learner.” The manager who believes they know everything is doomed to learn
nothing new. The manager who believes that they have everything to know
is inclined to listen and learn as much as possible from others. Managers can
demonstrate that “there is no such thing as a dumb question” when they
actually reward questions, viewpoints, ideas that may be even half-baked by
building up ideas rather than tearing them down. This is accomplished by
starting with an idea in its current state and expressing concerns in the form
of open-ended questions such as, “What will it take to get Finance behind
this idea?” “How will this impact the IT department?” “How will the executive
team react?” These questions stimulate thinking versus suspend it and help
employees develop good judgement. It is more productive for the employee
to realize that their idea may be half-baked than it is for the leader to quickly
point it out. There is also the possibility that the idea or viewpoint actually
has merit not considered by the leader.
The next Myth, is a classic and it is related to this one.

Myth #4: We have an open-door policy

This is another Myth that should be unnecessary to declare. The intent
behind this platitude is to convey an easy access policy to managers. It is an

Rutgers Business Review Vol. 5, No. 1 33

 7 Myths of Leadership in Business

invitation to enter a manager’s office anytime an employee needs their

support, guidance or to listen. This Myth, like all of them, is well-intended.
So, what happens when employees come knocking at the door? I often hear
managers complain about employees who constantly want time and energy
which are scarce resources. Managers often have overloaded platters that are
spilling over and the last thing they want is a needy employee who wants to
discuss something perceived as irrelevant. So, when I ask managers how they
handle this demand, they respond in remarkably similar ways. Multi-tasking
is the number one defense against the needy employee. When asked,
managers describe in detail that by multi-tasking, they can send an implicit
message that they cannot or should not be disturbed right now. This escape
mechanism could be classic avoidance behavior and passive aggressive. 5
Some managers simply ask for their employee to return at another time.
However, some managers attempt to multi-task, listen to their employee
while working on another task. What prevents managers from asking their
employee to return at a better time? I often ask managers, “what goes through
your head when your Employee sees you working on a task while they proceed
with you?” The response is common: “Don’t they see that it’s not a good time,
that I’m trying to do something else...?”
The multi-tasking issue requires a separate discussion. This process can
be thought of as another myth. Research shows that when people attempt to
multitask, the prefrontal cortex experiences a log jam as it tries to discern
which task to tend to first.6 Multitasking decreases accuracy and increases
time to completion.7
Meeting with your employee(s) should not be a test of your Multi-tasking
might. It should be a demonstration of your commitment to any employee
who needs your time and attention. The next time an employee approaches
you and asks for time, if it is permissible, try providing your undivided
attention. That means no multitasking heroics. Reliable research shows that
multitasking is inefficient and degrades performance. The brain simply
cannot jump from one thing to the other without negative consequences.
When employees are asked what implicit message(s) they get when their
managers are multitasking while they are trying to talk to them, they
consistently respond as follows:
 I’m not important
 It’s not a good time
 I’m not as important as whatever else they are doing
 My needs are unimportant
 My time is less important than theirs

34 Rutgers Business Review Spring 2020

7 Myths of Leadership in Business

These perceptions are likely to blow the open-door policy out of the
water.
The next Myth is linked to the leader’s ego.

Myth #5: I’m Always Open to Feedback

Have you ever asked employees for feedback about your performance
only to be told, “Oh, no, everything is fine…” This may be the case. It may also
indicate a low level of Psychological Safety which makes it unsafe for
employees to share upward feedback. 8 This declaration is rather complex
when we peel back the layers. There are four factors that influence a leader’s
feedback willingness, acceptance and behavior change actions:
1. Leader humility
2. Individual Feedback Orientation
3. Organizational Cynicism
4. Feedback Culture

Leader humility, the degree to which one has an objective, modest self-
view, is a determinant of willingness to encourage upward feedback and voice
behaviors. When a leader demonstrates a low profile (humility), it is a clear
signal to their employees that their voice matters in the organization and
they see the value in having upward voice.9 Leader humility can be
contagious and signal to others that openness to learn and improve are
valued and provides permission for others to follow the behavior.
An individual leader’s feedback orientation refers to the capacity,
receptivity, feedback seeking and likelihood of acting on feedback. 10 Leaders
who have a high feedback orientation are more willing to accept feedback
and do something about it. Specific action plans are shown to be the most
effective way to change behavior based on feedback.
Organizational Cynicism is defined in three dimensions by Dean, Brandes
and Dharwadkar as, (1) “a belief that the organization lacks integrity, (2)
negative affect toward the organization and (3) a tendency to disparage and
criticize the organization.”11 Organizational cynics believe that they and
others are not treated fairly, that decisions are made without consideration
for those affected and that policies are not fair. The cynic is less likely to yield
to upward feedback or treat it with much respect.
Feedback culture, is the extent to which the organization values divergent
thinking,12 believes that learning is an investment, that learning must never
stop, and that it is a critical component of sustained competitive advantage.
When managers live this value they are inclined to accept upward feedback
more than those who work in a culture that does not value upward feedback.

Rutgers Business Review Vol. 5, No. 1 35

 7 Myths of Leadership in Business

Feedback Orientation, refers to a manager’s upward feedback receptivity

and encourages employees to openly disclose feedback. A common form of
formal feedback is the Multi-rater assessment process. This process is used
to gather feedback from employees (below), peers, superiors and other
colleagues. Managers who share their feedback with others and share even
general development goals are more likely to attain their goals than those
managers who do not share development goals with others.
Managers must demonstrate their openness to feedback by making it
entirely safe for employees to openly disclose it. That means managers should
not discount, disparage, negate or deny feedback information. Needless to
say, retaliation is never an option.
Given the current climate the next Myth is quite relevant. Do nice leaders
really finish last? This Myth is considered next.

Myth #6: Nice Leaders Finish Last

Today, we are hyper-focused on leadership behavior in part because of
the unusual nature of our current national political climate. Could our
political arena shape our corporate cultures in the near future? What would
happen if current political scenarios somehow crept into our organizational
cultures? Specifically, what if the bold, in-your-face leadership style that has
captured mainstream media attention provides the bully boss with a platform
and behavioral affirmation? Abusive (bully) leadership is defined (from the
employee’s view) as harmful, deviant, verbal or non-verbal and physical
behavior.13 Research shows that employees who perceive their manager as
“abusive” are less job satisfied, less committed to their organization, less
trusting of their coworkers, more psychologically distressed, more resistant
to their manager’s influence attempts and less willing to stand up for their
organization.14 The manager bully can lead to counterproductive work
behavior such as a culture of silence,15 where employees willfully withhold
important work-related information, increased voluntary turnover and
unhealthy organizational climate.
A leader’s behavior is partially shaped by their identity. Our identity is the
way we define ourselves relative to others.16 There are two main identity
types: individual and group-level. Leaders with individual identity formation
are strongly motivated by personal values and goals and are frequently
demonstrating their superiority relative to others. 17 Studies show that leaders
with strong individual identity are more abusive than leaders with group-
level identities.18 Conversely, leaders with group-level identities see
themselves as organizational members, they internalize company values and
demonstrate inclusive behaviors that encourage voice and healthy
interactions.

36 Rutgers Business Review Spring 2020

7 Myths of Leadership in Business

According to researchers Tepper, Moss & Duffy, abusive behavior

includes outbursts, undermining others and, public denigration. Studies
show that ~13% of employees (~1.4 million) experience abusive leadership
that costs organizations an estimated $23.8 billion dollars in lost productivity,
volunteer turnover, absenteeism, increased health care costs and employee
withdrawal.19 Not every employee is a target of the abusive leader. Some
abusive leaders tend to target those employees that are most unlike them or
those who they experience as socially undesirable. To put it simply, an
employee is more likely to be the target of abuse when they are least like the
boss or they are not, according to the bully boss, performing well.
One of the most troubling aspects of the bully leader is that their behavior
can be contagious. Research shows that abusive behavior trickles down and
can become an organization norm, which represents risk. Employees will
tend to mimic this behavior if they can remember it, if they can actually
behave similarly and if they have motivation to act such as a desire to get
ahead.20
When employees experience abusive leader behavior, they tend to believe
that the organizations that allow this must not care about their contribution
and doubt whether their contribution has significance or value. This state of
mind can launch an employee’s voluntary turnover intentions. Turnover
costs can exceed 100% of an employee’s annual salary.21 According to the US
Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US annual quit rate is 25%. Turnover
intentions lead to what is known as turnover scripts. Turnover scripts are the
internal dialogue that occurs when employees start to think about leaving
their employer, which is usually motivated by bad experiences.
Organizations must pay close attention to leader behavior. They should
encourage and measure Cultures of Voice and Cultures of Silence and then
work to reduce or eliminate cultures of silence. The best defense against a
toxic culture rooted in bully behavior is to know who is leading others in your
organization. Listen to your employees, encourage voice and closely monitor
whether the leaders in your organization are encouraging voice or eliciting
silence.
The next Myth is one that I hear often especially from recruiting
organizations. The Work/Life Balance Myth is particularly important now
given that more than 50% of the work force demographic are Millennials.
Moreover, 45% of companies report higher turnover rates among Millennials
and research shows this demographic will stay with their employers for an
average of 3 three years and that they have more quality of life concerns
compared to previous generations.

Rutgers Business Review Vol. 5, No. 1 37

 7 Myths of Leadership in Business

Myth #7: Work/life Balance is Important

Work life balance has become a ubiquitous term in the 21 st century
workplace. “Work-life balance is defined as a state of equilibrium in which
the demands of both a person’s job and personal life are equal.” 22
Technological advancements, specifically mobile technology, flatter
organizational structures and process streamlining have blurred the lines
between home and work. For example, according to the U.S. Department of
Labor, 42% of children live in dual-earner households. Family structures have
shifted to more dual-earner married couples which increase the likelihood of
work life imbalance. Many organizations embraced this family structure
reality by instituting work life balance policies. The company policy may exist
but one’s immediate manager may not follow the company line.
Who determines if one’s work and life are balanced? How and when do
employees decide that their life is in or out of balance? The answers are not
one size fits all. Individual ideology (world view and beliefs), gender,
generational norms and national societal norms, all play a part in the Work
Life Balance equation.

Ideology
Individuals hold different beliefs about work-life balance based on their
life experiences. Leslie, King and Clair assert that three work-life ideologies
exist: 23
1. Fixed Pie
a. Expandable pie
2. Segmentation
3. Work priority

The fixed pie ideology is the belief that resources available for work and
life are fixed and scarce. The expandable pie ideology is the belief that
enriching the resources in one domain can enrich the other.
The segmentation ideology is the belief that work and life domains are
completely separate. The opposite, integration ideology, is the belief that
work thoughts, feelings and experiences influence life and vice versa. The
work priority ideology is the belief that work is a priority over life whereas life
priority is the belief that life takes precedence over work. National societal
norms can influence these ideologies. For example, in masculine societies
(United States) people live to work and in feminine societies (Sweden) people
work to live.24 In addition, generations play a part in work life balance
mythology.

38 Rutgers Business Review Spring 2020

7 Myths of Leadership in Business

Generational Work Life Balance

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of 2016, Millennials
(75.4 million) surpassed Baby Boomers (74.9 million) and Generation X (74.9
million) as the nation’s largest living generation.25 Generation Z, those born
in 1998 and after are just starting to enter the workplace. There are
similarities and difference among the generations about work life policies
and practices. The Generation X, those born between 1965-1978, prefer a work
life balance and are motivated by career advancement opportunity and
security. Generation Y, the Millennials, those born between 1979-1997 prefer
work life balance and working for a good cause. Generation Z, those born in
1998 and after seem to have a strong work ethic and prefer work life balance
and a blend of virtual and live interaction at work. They believe that a good
employer is one who invests in their development and values divergent
thinking in the workplace. So, when and where you were born play a part in
work life balance practices and norms.

National Societal Norms

Not all national societal cultures place the same value on work life
balance. “Individualistic cultures (mostly Western) tend to keep work and
family relationships separate, whereas collectivist cultures (mostly Eastern)
usually integrate the two realms.”26 For example, Asian countries have a
different gender-based view of work and family compared to western
countries. Women are expected to provide care for the family and men are
expected to be the provider. In China, a collectivistic society, economic
growth has led to increased work demands therefore increasing work family
conflict.27
Regardless of your ideology, where or when you were born, work life
balance has health implications.

Work Life Balance Health Implications

The relationship between work life imbalance and sickness has been
significantly studied with varying results. Studies show that those who
consistently work long hours (more than 40 hours per week) do not have
higher sickness related absence rates compared to those who work less than
40 hours per week or part time. Instead, it is believed that employees working
more than 48 hours, those with high attendance motivation, show up for
work when they are sick. Working while sick is known as Presenteeism which
“occurs when an employee goes to work despite a medical illness that will
prevent him or her from fully functioning at work” 28 and costs US companies
an estimated $150 billion in lost productivity. 29 A Finnish Occupational
Health Study (61 countries) “found that people working 49 to 54 hours a week

Rutgers Business Review Vol. 5, No. 1 39

 7 Myths of Leadership in Business

were 13 per cent more likely to start drinking at “risky” levels. This is defined
as 14 drinks a week for women, and 21 drinks a week for men.” 30
Working long hours can negatively impact work life balance in many
ways. Although many organizations emphasize work life balance and healthy
life styles, a policy can easily become a myth when there is a disconnect
between what they policy states and the actual practices demonstrated by
one’s immediate manager, when an individual employee’s work life balance
beliefs are inconsistent with the stated company policy. Organization must
ensure that policies are demonstrated consistently throughout the hierarchy
and that managers are trained to understand the complexities of work life
balance to avoid a one size fits all perception.

Conclusion
This article sheds slight on the difference between leadership platitudes
and observable actions. The employee culture forms opinions about leaders
based on what they see and experience, not what they hear. Every leader must
be hyper aware of declarations made to their employees no matter how well
intended. They can backfire and cause cynicism, disengagement and cultures
of silence if actions do not reflect spoken words. This article reviewed seven
common myths espoused by leaders across industries and continents. An
actual comparison between engagement and exit interview data showed that
leader platitudes were myths. Leaders must never take for granted that their
every word and every action is observed, recorded and interpreted by the
employee culture where proof is required for validity.

Author
Dr. Rob Bogosian is a principal at RVB Associates, Inc., the co-author of Breaking
Corporate Silence and has been featured in Business Insider, CNN Money, The
Economist, Fortune Magazine, CEO Magazine, San Francisco Chronicle,
Bloomberg Radio, Entrepreneur Magazine and more. The firm offers a range of
talent management and culture shaping expertise focused on linking management
and leadership development to business strategy. Areas of specialization include:
global enterprise-wide leadership development, assessment and executive coaching,
shaping and sustaining Cultures of Voice, and M & A Culture Integration. Prior to
establishing RVB Associates, Rob was Vice President of Performance Development
at Wachovia Corporation (a Wells Fargo company). In that capacity, he was
responsible for developing strategic talent management and organizational
development solutions throughout Wachovia’s asset management line of business.
In addition, he oversaw the development of high performing, high potential talent
and played a pivotal role with executive teams and individuals helping them achieve
their performance development goals. Rob is an Adjunct Faculty member at the
Florida Atlantic University, Executive MBA Program in Boca Raton, Florida. He

40 Rutgers Business Review Spring 2020

7 Myths of Leadership in Business

holds a doctoral degree in Human and Organizational Learning from The George
Washington University, Washington, DC, a Certificate of Graduate Studies in
Organizational Development from Leslie University, Graduate School of
Management, Cambridge, MA, and a M.Ed. from Boston University, Boston, MA.
email: [email protected]

Endnotes
1. Slap, S. (2010). Bury my heart at Conference Room B: The unbeatable impact of truly
committed managers. New York: Penguin Books.
2. Li, X., Li, M., Fu, J., & Ullah, A. (2019). Leader humility and employee voice: The role of
employees’ regulatory focus and voice-role conception. Social Behavior and Personality:
An International Journal, 47(6), 1–12.
3. Fast, N.J., Burris, E.R., & Bartel, C.A. (2014). Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial
efficacy, ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice. Academy of
Management Journal, 57(4), 1013-1034.
4. Weaver, W.T. (1988). When discounting gets in the way. Training and Development
Magazine, 55-61.
5. Elliot, A.J. (2006) The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motiv
Emot, 30, 111-116.
6. Dux, P.E., Ivanoff, J., Asplund, C.L., & Marois, R. (2006). Isolation of a central bottleneck
of information processing with time-resolved fMRI. Neuron, 52, 1109–1120.
7. Ophira, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A.D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers.
PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
106(37), 15583–15587.
8. Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement
at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
9. Li, X., Li, M., Fu, J., & Ullah, A. (2019). Leader humility and employee voice: The role of
employees’ regulatory focus and voice-role conception. Social Behavior and Personality:
An International Journal, 47(6), 1–12.
10. London, M. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture and the longitudinal
performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12(1), 81-100.
11. Dean, J.W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational Cynicism. Academy of
Management Review, 23, 341-352.
12. Williams, S.D. (2004). Personality, attitude, and leader influences on divergent thinking
and creativity in organizations. Journal of Innovation Management, 7(3), 187-204.
13. Thoroughgood, C.N., Tate, B.W., Sawyer, K.B., & Jacobs, R. (2012). Bad to the bone:
Empirically defining and measuring destructive leader behavior. Journal of Leadership
and Organizational Studies, 19(2), 230-255.
14. Tepper, B.J., Duffy, M.K., Henle, C.A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice:
Victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 101-123.
15. Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis
of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138-158.
16. Johnson, R.E., Venus, M., Lanaj, K., Mao, C., & Chang, C.H. (2012). Leader identity as an
antecedent of the frequency and consistency of transformational, consideration, and
abusive leadership behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1262–1272.
17. Cross, S.E., Hardin, E.E., Gercek-Swing, B. (2010). The what, how, why, and where of self-
construal. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 142-179.

Rutgers Business Review Vol. 5, No. 1 41

 7 Myths of Leadership in Business

18. Lord, R.G., & Brown, D.J. (2003). Leader processes and follower self-identity. Mawah, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
19. Tepper, B.J., Moss, S.E., & Duffy, M.K. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision:
Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 279-294.
20. Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation
of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 55(5), 1187–1212.
21. Allen, D.G., Bryan, P.C., & Vardaman, J.M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing
misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives,
24(2).
22. Work-life balance. (2000, August 28). Word Spy.
23. Leslie, L.M., King, E.B. & Clair, J.A. (2019). Worklife ideologies: The contextual basis and
consequences about work and life, Academy of Management Review, 44(1), 72-98.
24. Hofstede, G.H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions
and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25. Bogosian, R., & Rousseau, C., (2017). How and why millennials are shaking up
organizational cultures. Rutgers University Business Journal, 2017, 386-394.
26. Hassan, Z., Dollard, M.F., & Winefield, A.H. (2010). Work-family conflict in east versus
west countries. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 17(1), 30-49.
27. Chandra, V. (2012). Work-life balance: eastern and western perspectives. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(5), 1040-1056.
28. Widera, E., Chang, A., & Chen, H.L. (2010). Presenteeism: A public health hazard. Journal
of General Internal Medicine, 25(11), 1244–1247.
29. Hemp, P. (2004, October). Presenteeism: At work - but out of it. Harvard Business
Review.
30. Sarchet, P. (2015, January 13). Long hours make people more likely to drink heavily. New
Scientist.

42 Rutgers Business Review Spring 2020