A new series of experiments published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General suggests that people consistently favor leaders who promise progress, even when the situation calls for someone to maintain existing systems. Across six studies, researchers found a persistent preference for progress-focused leadership—even in contexts where participants personally acknowledged that maintenance would be more beneficial. These findings suggest that leadership choices often reflect ingrained assumptions rather than a thoughtful match between a leader’s style and the needs of the moment.
Leadership is often discussed in terms of charisma, innovation, and transformation. Yet, not all challenges require bold new ideas. Many real-world situations require steady upkeep and continued support for systems already in place. From public infrastructure to healthcare systems to political institutions, maintenance work often determines whether services continue to function smoothly. Despite this, leaders who emphasize maintaining the status quo are rarely celebrated.
The researchers were curious whether this disconnect reflects a deeper psychological tendency. They asked a basic question: Do people recognize when maintenance is needed, and if so, do they choose leaders who are best suited for that job?
“When I started researching goals, I found that the literature focused almost entirely on two types: progress (or approach) goals and protection (or avoidance) goals. But as I thought about the goals people actually pursue in their lives, it seemed to me that most of them are actually about maintenance—keeping things stable, preserving what we have, sustaining relationships or systems,” said study author Yael Ecker, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Cologne.
“So I developed a new model that acknowledges maintenance as a distinct type of goal. When I began researching these maintenance goals empirically, my intuition was confirmed—they’re remarkably common in everyday life. Yet despite how prevalent they are, maintenance goals and the people who champion them seem to be systematically undervalued. I wanted to understand why, and whether this bias has real consequences. That’s what led to this study.”
The research team conducted six preregistered experiments involving over 3,000 participants, each designed to explore the gap between situational needs and leadership preferences.
In the first experiment, participants took part in a fictional election. They read descriptions of an imaginary country that either needed to maintain its progress, make further improvements, or protect itself from threats. After learning about the country’s situation, participants evaluated three candidates: one who focused on progress, another on maintenance, and a third on protection. Interestingly, participants overwhelmingly preferred the progress-oriented candidate—even when the country clearly needed maintenance.
Participants’ own decisions told a different story. When asked to allocate the country’s budget themselves, they chose to invest in maintenance when the scenario called for it. This suggests that while people understood the situational demands, they still preferred a leader focused on progress.
A second experiment raised the stakes. Participants played an investment game in which their earnings depended on making the right decisions. Again, participants chose to invest in maintenance when that strategy yielded better financial returns. But when asked to select a team leader, they still preferred the candidate who was focused on progress—even though this person was less likely to bring the best outcome in the given scenario.
This pattern repeated in two additional studies. In one set, participants evaluated policy proposals either as standalone ideas or as part of a leader’s platform. When the policies were presented without a leader, participants favored maintenance-oriented agendas. But when the same proposals were attributed to a political candidate, the preference flipped. Even when participants liked the maintenance plan, they were less likely to support a leader associated with it.
“I was quite surprised by how robust the progress bias is,” Ecker told PsyPost. “No matter how clearly we made it that maintenance was what was needed in the situation, it did not nudge participants enough to favor a maintenance-oriented leader.”
The remaining studies aimed to uncover why this bias occurs. One hypothesis was that people might see progress-oriented leaders as more energetic or hardworking. To test this, researchers described all candidates as putting in either high or low effort. Even when effort levels were equalized, participants still favored the progress-focused leaders.
In the final experiment, the researchers tested a second idea: that people assume progress-oriented leaders have a broader scope—that they will not only make changes but also keep existing systems running. To examine this, they described progress-oriented candidates in one of three ways. In the first group, no additional information was given. In the second group, the leader was described as also supporting maintenance. In the third, the leader was described as having no interest in maintenance.
In the first two groups, participants preferred the progress-oriented leader. But when told that the progress leader would ignore maintenance, the preference shifted. Participants now favored the maintenance-oriented candidate. This reversal suggests that people choose progress-oriented leaders partly because they assume those leaders will handle everything—including maintenance—whether or not that’s true.
“The key takeaway for individuals is to be aware of this bias and correct it—giving those who champion maintenance the credit they deserve. However, correcting bias at the individual level is hard. The main message is therefore directed at campaign managers and policymakers: rather than fighting this bias head-on, work with it. Emphasize the change and progress elements within maintenance work.”
“For instance, maintaining infrastructure isn’t just ‘keeping things the same’—it involves constant adaptation, improvement, and active problem-solving,” Ecker explained. “A crucial insight is that maintenance requires action and often innovation, yet our bias toward novelty can lead us to undervalue this essential work. Effective messaging should highlight the dynamic, active nature of maintenance rather than letting it be perceived as passive or static.”
“This may have been part of the challenge facing the Biden administration—when leadership focuses on maintaining stability, preserving institutions, or sustaining systems, it can appear less dynamic than championing bold new changes, even when that maintenance work is essential and demanding.”
The researchers acknowledge that their findings come from controlled experiments with clear distinctions between leadership styles. Real-world leadership is messier. Voters and group members often consider many factors at once, including past performance, political affiliations, and personal traits. In these experiments, participants judged fictional leaders with minimal background information, which may exaggerate certain tendencies.
Also, all the experiments were conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom. Cultural differences in leadership expectations or values might shape how people think about progress and maintenance. The bias toward progress may not be as strong in other parts of the world where long-term stability and incremental change are more highly valued.
The researchers plan to extend this work by studying how political speech reflects these different goal orientations.
“We’re currently working on large datasets of natural political speech from parliamentary records and party platforms in different countries, testing how maintenance, progress, and protection reflected in these texts predict political attitudes,” Ecker said. “We’re also planning to test what we found in this study as a more general principle—examining whether people are biased towards change in ways that may affect personal life choices, relationships, consumer choices, organizational decisions, environmental behavior, and more.”
The study, “Bias Toward Progress-Oriented Leaders: People Prefer Progress- Over Maintenance-Oriented Leaders Even When a Maintenance Orientation Is Required,” was authored by Yael Ecker, Anne I. Weitzel, and Joris Lammers.