Are leaders hostage to chemical processes which dictate their outlook? Professors Nada and Andrew Kakabadse consider the impact of testosterone and other hormones.

If you want to identify the Alpha Male in your workplace, look for the following traits:

• A strong, jutting out jaw
• Prominent cheekbones
• A deep voice
• Muscularity
• Body hair (being hairy indicates high testosterone, while very high levels cause baldness)

If this same Alpha Male is a leader within your organisation, you may wish to consider how their judgement could affect your future.

While the above characteristics are a crude measure of identifying higher-than-average levels of testosterone, research shows that high ‘T’ can dramatically impact a leader’s ‘cost/benefit’ calculations.

One theory is that testosterone production is sensitive to social position, and its levels can increase to match the energy requirements of men attaining high status.

In other cases, leaders openly admit to taking artificial ‘T’ therapies to increase their energy, vigour and sex drive. The impact of this on their decision-making is a source of increasing speculation.

Alpha males tend to be self-oriented, highly focused and driven to achieve. They rarely take a long-term view or consider the needs of others. It is unlikely these are positive leadership attributes at a time when modern business relationships increasingly demand emotional intelligence in order to succeed.

Being empathetic, confident and sensitive to tense political relationships is as much a part of a leader’s skills portfolio as drive and achievement. In fact, effectiveness is often measured by the ability to balance testosterone with the ‘oestrogen effect’.

Recent research into human hormones shows that a balance between testosterone and oestrogen is ideal for leaders who are handling demanding and multifaceted problems.

If a leader is too testosterone-driven, they are likely to be characterised by a dictatorial, top-down approach, which will either be directly challenged or met with passive resistance. Too much oestrogen-orientated behaviour, on the other hand, results in an over-cautiousness bordering on inaction.

If an organisation reaches a point where both men and women are simply following orders they know to be wrong and cannot challenge, the brain secretes the steroid hormone cortisol, causing people to become process-focused and play it safe.

Clearly neither of these extremes offer a satisfactory solution to the challenges faced by leaders who struggle at whichever end of the hormone scale. However, there is light on the horizon in the form of yet another hormone – oxytocin, which evokes feelings of contentment and encourages supportive behaviour within social groups. Conversely, a lack of this particular hormone makes individuals extremely tired and weak, suffer low sex drive, and find themselves unable to cope with stressful situations.

If a leader genuinely becomes a hostage to the chemical processes outlined, their decision-making could well prove harmful beyond the point of rescue. Resorting to an appropriately prescribed and controlled dose of oxytocin could prove a small price to pay for all concerned.