Free research paper

The Case for Human Rooted Leadership.

Why human skills matter more as AI takes on more.

The evidence from labor-market data, neuroscience, sociology, and decades of leadership research, in one fully cited paper. About 22 pages.

A research position

The Case for Human Rooted Leadership

The economic, neuroscientific, and behavioral evidence that the human capabilities of leadership become more valuable as AI advances.

Tony Woodall

Human Rooted Leader™ · Rootstock

The research behind it.

Human-Rooted Leadership is our model. These are the studies behind its ingredients.

Human skills keep rising in value

The wage return on social skills nearly doubled from one generation of US workers to the next, while the return on cognitive skills fell. (Deming, 2017)

Jobs built on open-ended decisions grew from 6% of US jobs in 1960 to 34% in 2018, and management’s share of total wages roughly doubled. (Deming, 2021)

In a 2025 survey of more than 1,000 companies, leadership and social influence showed the biggest jump of any core skill since 2023. (World Economic Forum)

McKinsey Global Institute found that work built on social and emotional skills remains largely beyond the reach of automation, even if companies adopt AI fully. (2025)

Sources: Deming 2017 (nber.org/papers/w21473) · Deming 2021 (nber.org/papers/w28733) · WEF Future of Jobs 2025 · McKinsey Global Institute, “Agents, robots, and us” (2025)

Teams tend to learn and perform better when people feel safe

In a study of 51 work teams, teams where people felt safe taking interpersonal risks showed more learning behavior, and learning behavior was linked to better team performance. (Edmondson, 1999)

A review of 136 samples, over 22,000 people, found psychological safety linked to learning, information sharing, engagement, and performance. (Frazier et al., 2017)

Google’s internal study of 180 teams ranked psychological safety first of five team dynamics. (Google, “Project Aristotle”)

In 117 student project teams, disagreement about the work was linked to better performance when people felt safe. (Bradley et al., 2012)

Sources: doi.org/10.2307/2666999 · doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183 · doi.org/10.1037/a0024200

Managers shape the team, and leaders can be developed

Gallup estimates that managers account for at least 70% of the variation in team engagement across business units. (Gallup, 2014)

A review of 335 samples found leadership training improved learning, behavior, and organizational results. Design mattered: needs analysis, feedback, practice, and spaced sessions all helped. (Lacerenza et al., 2017)

Mentoring is linked to favorable outcomes, though the effects are generally small. (Eby et al., 2008)

Sources: gallup.com/workplace/231593/why-great-managers-rare.aspx · doi.org/10.1037/apl0000241 · doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.005

People notice the human behind the message

In nine studies of more than 6,000 people, the same supportive message was valued less when people believed an AI wrote it, and people chose a human when they wanted to feel cared for. (Rubin et al., 2025)

In a study of 1,100 professionals, managers who relied on AI at medium or high levels for a message to their team were seen as less sincere and caring, though the messages seemed professional. (Cardon & Coman, 2025)

Sources: doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02247-w · doi.org/10.1177/23294884251350599

Trust is built on competence and care

In a field study of 194 managers and professionals, trust built on competence and trust built on care proved distinct, with different roots and different effects on cooperation. (McAllister, 1995)

Trust in leaders has been studied for decades and is linked to key outcomes, most strongly job satisfaction and commitment, and more modestly performance. A person’s direct supervisor is an especially important focus of that trust. (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002)

Across 112 studies and 7,763 teams, trust within a team predicted team performance, and it mattered most when the work was interdependent. (De Jong et al., 2016)

After a mistake, trust was repaired when the party could apologize and be believed — repair depends on an agent with integrity to stake. (Kim et al., 2004)

Trust in leaders has been studied for decades and is linked to key outcomes, most strongly job satisfaction and commitment, and more modestly performance. A person’s direct supervisor is an especially important focus of that trust. (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002)

Sources: doi.org/10.2307/256727 · doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611 · doi.org/10.1037/apl0000110 · doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.104