|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
September 21, 2026 07:55 AM
|
After
September 29, 2026 11:07 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
We compare two active, half-day leadership trainings delivered on September 11, 2026. Managers assigned to the charisma-training arm receive instruction and practice in concrete, learnable charismatic leadership communication tactics, drawing on Antonakis et al. (2011, 2012). Managers assigned to the active-comparison arm receive leadership training of similar duration and broad thematic content, but charisma is presented through outcome-based leadership theories rather than through the same concrete behavioral communication techniques. Both trainings are administered on the same day. After training, managers return to their offices and apply the material during ordinary communication about team goals, office performance, and workplace collaboration. During the February competition period, all managers receive a booster reminding them of the trained tactics.
|
After
We compare two active, half-day leadership trainings delivered on September 11, 2026. Managers assigned to the charisma-training arm receive instruction and practice in concrete, learnable charismatic leadership communication tactics, drawing on Antonakis et al. (2011, 2012). Managers assigned to the active-comparison arm receive leadership training of similar duration and broad thematic content, but charisma is presented through outcome-based leadership theories rather than through the same concrete behavioral communication techniques. Both trainings are administered on the same day. After training, managers return to their offices and apply the material during ordinary communication about team goals, office performance, and workplace collaboration. During the January competition period, all managers receive a booster reminding them of the trained tactics.
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
We compare two active, half-day leadership trainings delivered on September 11, 2026. Managers assigned to the charisma-training arm receive instruction and practice in concrete, learnable charismatic leadership communication tactics, drawing on Antonakis et al. (2011, 2012). Managers assigned to the active-comparison arm receive leadership training of similar duration and broad thematic content, but charisma is presented through outcome-based leadership theories rather than through the same concrete behavioral communication techniques.
Following training, managers in both experimental arms complete four structured communication assignments embedded in actual organizational episodes. Managers prepare and record messages addressed to their employees concerning:
1. an October team competition;
2. the creation of a collaborative work environment in November;
3. attainment of an office-specific performance target in January; and
4. a second team competition in February.
Within each wave, the broad topic and organizational context are common across managers, but managers choose how to formulate, structure, frame, and deliver their message. These repeated communication assignments allow us to observe whether the training changes managers’ actual communication behavior across different organizational tasks and over time. During the January competition period, managers assigned to the charisma-training arm receive a booster reminding them of the trained tactics.
|
After
We compare two active, half-day leadership trainings delivered on September 11, 2026. Managers assigned to the charisma-training arm receive instruction and practice in concrete, learnable charismatic leadership communication tactics, drawing on Antonakis et al. (2011, 2012). Managers assigned to the active-comparison arm receive leadership training of similar duration and broad thematic content, but charisma is presented through outcome-based leadership theories rather than through the same concrete behavioral communication techniques.
Following training, managers in both experimental arms complete four structured communication assignments embedded in actual organizational episodes. Managers prepare and record messages addressed to their employees concerning:
1. an October team competition;
2. the creation of a collaborative work environment in November;
3. attainment of an office-specific performance target in January; and
4. a second team competition in February.
Within each wave, the broad topic and organizational context are common across managers, but managers choose how to formulate, structure, frame, and deliver their message. These repeated communication assignments allow us to observe whether the training changes managers’ actual communication behavior across different organizational tasks and over time. During the January competition period, managers assigned receive a booster reminding them of the trained tactics.
|
|
Field
Intervention (Hidden)
|
Before
The charisma-training arm receives practical instruction in concrete verbal and nonverbal charismatic leadership tactics. The active-comparison arm receives a leadership course of the same approximate duration and on closely related content, but it describes charisma primarily through desired leadership outcomes and does not provide training in the same concrete charismatic communication tactics. Detailed training materials and agendas for both arms are included in the supporting documents. During the February competition period, all managers receive a booster reminding them of the trained tactics.
The theory of change is:
charisma training → greater use of charismatic leadership tactics and higher video charisma → clearer and more persuasive communication, stronger inferred leader commitment, stronger leadership perceptions, greater team identity and shared ownership, stronger beliefs that coworkers understand and support the objective, and greater communication intensity → improved employee knowledge of organizational goals, stronger goal commitment, greater helping and information sharing, and greater collegiality → improved organizational performance and cooperative workplace behavior.
First-stage hypothesis: Managers assigned to the charisma-training arm will exhibit greater use of charismatic leadership tactics and higher externally assessed video charisma than managers assigned to the active-comparison arm.
Primary Hypothesis A: Offices whose managers are assigned to the charisma-training arm will have higher organizational team performance, measured by the pooled Organizational Team Performance Index.
Primary Hypothesis B: Employees whose managers are assigned to the charisma-training arm will exhibit greater cooperative workplace behavior, measured by the Public-Good and Sabotage Game Index.
Mechanism Hypothesis A: Employees whose managers are assigned to the charisma-training arm will have higher values of the Collective-Goal Mobilization Index.
Mechanism Hypothesis B: Employees whose managers are assigned to the charisma-training arm will have higher values of the Workplace Cooperation Diary and Collegiality Index.
Supporting analyses will examine message effectiveness, inferred leader preparation and commitment, team identity and shared ownership, trust, leadership perceptions, beliefs about coworkers’ commitment, and the frequency of managerial communication. These are intermediate outcomes and will not, by themselves, be interpreted as causally identified mediators.
|
After
The charisma-training arm receives practical instruction in concrete verbal and nonverbal charismatic leadership tactics. The active-comparison arm receives a leadership course of the same approximate duration and on closely related content, but it describes charisma primarily through desired leadership outcomes and does not provide training in the same concrete charismatic communication tactics. Detailed training materials and agendas for both arms are included in the supporting documents. During the January competition period, all managers receive a booster reminding them of the trained tactics.
The theory of change is:
charisma training → greater use of charismatic leadership tactics and higher video charisma → clearer and more persuasive communication, stronger inferred leader commitment, stronger leadership perceptions, greater team identity and shared ownership, stronger beliefs that coworkers understand and support the objective, and greater communication intensity → improved employee knowledge of organizational goals, stronger goal commitment, greater helping and information sharing, and greater collegiality → improved organizational performance and cooperative workplace behavior.
First-stage hypothesis: Managers assigned to the charisma-training arm will exhibit greater use of charismatic leadership tactics and higher externally assessed video charisma than managers assigned to the active-comparison arm.
Primary Hypothesis A: Offices whose managers are assigned to the charisma-training arm will have higher organizational team performance, measured by the pooled Organizational Team Performance Index.
Primary Hypothesis B: Employees whose managers are assigned to the charisma-training arm will exhibit greater cooperative workplace behavior, measured by the Public-Good and Sabotage Game Index.
Mechanism Hypothesis A: Employees whose managers are assigned to the charisma-training arm will have higher values of the Collective-Goal Mobilization Index.
Mechanism Hypothesis B: Employees whose managers are assigned to the charisma-training arm will have higher values of the Workplace Cooperation Diary and Collegiality Index.
Supporting analyses will examine message effectiveness, inferred leader preparation and commitment, team identity and shared ownership, trust, leadership perceptions, beliefs about coworkers’ commitment, and the frequency of managerial communication. These are intermediate outcomes and will not, by themselves, be interpreted as causally identified mediators.
|