How Leaders Emerge: Evidence from Leadership Selection and Team Performance in India

Last registered on June 27, 2025

View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title

How Leaders Emerge: Evidence from Leadership Selection and Team Performance in India

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0016103

Initial registration date

May 28, 2025

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published

May 30, 2025, 10:07 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated

June 27, 2025, 3:34 AM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Country

India

Region

Madhya Pradesh

Primary Investigator

Name

Ashutosh Bhuradia

Affiliation

Harvard University

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status

On going

Start date

2025-05-19

End date

2025-08-31

Keywords

Behavior, Education, Gender

Additional Keywords

JEL code(s)

J01, I23, I24, I24

Secondary IDs

Prior work

This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.

Abstract

Jobs that involve non-routine analytical team tasks have grown rapidly over the past two decades, increasing demand for soft skills essential to these roles. My study examines the interplay teamwork and leadership in the context of higher education and STEM in India. Specifically, I propose an experiment with 610 students at a large engineering college, where students are randomly assigned to 203 project teams that vary on how leaders are selected within teams (peer-nominated vs. researcher-assigned leaders based on social skills). Using an incentivized app development competition addressing challenges in rural India, the study analyzes how examines leaders characteristics differ across leadership selection methods, and measures how these influence team dynamics and performance.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

Bhuradia, Ashutosh. 2025. "How Leaders Emerge: Evidence from Leadership Selection and Team Performance in India ." AEA RCT Registry. June 27. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.16103-3.0

Sponsors & Partners

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

The intervention involves a randomized controlled trial with student teams at an engineering college in rural India. Students are first randomly assigned into teams of 3 with variation in gender composition (female-majority or female minority team) and these teams are then randomly assigned across two arms:

1) Peer-Nominated Leader (T1): Team members discuss and nominate a leader from among themselves.
2) Researcher-Assigned Leader (T2): The researcher assigns the leader based on the social perceptiveness --specifically the highest PAGE (Perceived AI Generated Emotions) score among the team members.

All teams participate in a two-week app concept competition focused on solving rural challenges in agriculture or education. The competition simulates real-world teamwork under pressure, allowing the study to measure how different methods of leader selection impact team dynamics and project outcomes.

Intervention (Hidden)

Intervention Start Date

2025-05-30

Intervention End Date

2025-07-05

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

Outcome #1: Differences in leader characteristics between peer-nominated and researcher-assigned teams
Outcome # 2: Differences in average project rating
Outcome # 3: Reported Team Effectiveness
Outcome # 4: Reported Team Leader Effectiveness
Outcome # 5: Perceived Influence

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Outcome #1: Differences in leader characteristics between peer-nominated and researcher-assigned teams
Outcome # 2: Differences in average project rating (each project will be rated by 2 trained independent raters, based on a pre-defined rubric) across treatment arms
Outcome # 3: Reported Team Effectiveness (index constructed from 4 questions in the endline)
Outcome # 4: Reported Team Leader Effectiveness (reported on a scale of 1-10)
Outcome # 5: Perceived Influence (probability of women team members being voted as most influential - Karpowitz et al. 2024) - Only to test the effect of variation in gender composition of teams

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

Google Slides/Docs activity: Version history to view detailed contribution records
WhatsApp Group activity
Measure of Sexism (only to test the effect of variation in gender composition of teams)
Measures of productivity (number of meetings conducted, number of hours worked)

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Google Slides/Docs activity: Version history to view detailed contribution records
WhatsApp Group activity: constructed using activity data on team-level WhatsApp groups
Measures of productivity (number of meetings conducted, number of hours worked)
Measure of Sexism (Glick et. al, 1996 -- “The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism.”)

Experimental Design

610 undergraduate students at an engineering college in rural India are first randomly assigned into teams of three, stratified by academic year (Year 1, Year 2, Year 3), with each team containing one female and two males, OR two females and one male. These 203 teams are then randomly assigned across two arms:

Peer-Nominated Leader (T1): Teams nominate a leader from among their members
Researcher-Assigned Leader (T2): The leader is assigned by the researcher based on the team member's score on a social perceptiveness assessment -- specifically the highest PAGE (Perceived AI Generated Emotions) score among the team members.

Teams participate in an incentivized app development competition addressing rural Indian challenges. The competition simulates real-world teamwork under pressure, allowing the study to measure how different methods of leader selection impact team dynamics and project outcomes.

Experimental Design Details

Randomization Method

Randomized done by software (R)

Randomization Unit

Two-stage randomization:
1) Individual students randomized into teams of 3 (within academic year and such that each team as AT LEAST 1 female and 1 male member)
2) Teams randomized into leadership selection treatment conditions (stratified by academic year and gender composition)

Was the treatment clustered?

Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

203 teams

Sample size: planned number of observations

610 students

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

101 teams in Peer-Nominated Leader condition (across female-majority and female-minority teams)
102 teams in Researcher-Assigned Leader condition (across female-majority and female-minority teams)

Total: 203 teams, 610 students (3 students per team)

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB