An assumption underlying the study of leadership is that leaders affect organizational performance. The highest-level leaders make the same assumption. A frequent antidote to major organizational problems is to replace the leader in the hope that the newly appointed leader will reverse performance problems. The idea that leaders actually influence organizational performance and morale is widely believed, and there has been a moderate amount of research and opinion that deals with this issue.

How leaders impact organizational (or unit) performance is the essential subject. For example, good results are attained by developing teamwork and formulating the right strategy. In contrast to the previous argument, the anti-leadership argument holds that the impact of the leader on organizational outcomes is smaller than the impact of forces within the situation.

To personalize this perspective, imagine yourself appointed as the manager of a group of highly skilled investment bankers. How well your group performs could be attributed as much to their talent and to economic conditions as to your leadership. At times, incompetent leadership can be counterbalanced by certain factors in the work situation. Under these circumstances, leadership itself is of little consequence to the performance and satisfaction of team members.

According to this viewpoint, many organizations have substitutes for leadership. Such substitutes are factors in the work environment that provide guidance and incentives to perform, making the leader’s role almost superfluous. When members of a cohesive, highly trained group are focused on a goal, they may require almost no leadership to accomplish their task. Employees who are engaged in work they find strongly self-motivating, or intrinsically satisfying, require a minimum of leadership.