We’ve all heard employers claim that “the team here is like a family.” At first, that can sound comforting, suggesting closeness, support, and trust. But most of us also know that families can be complicated. Further, what’s less often considered is the actual family life of bosses. Because how your boss grew up – the kind of childhood and family culture they experienced – can quietly shape the way your workplace ‘family’ functions.
As a leadership consultant, I’ve spent thousands of hours listening to the life stories of managers, board members and C-suite executives. My job is to understand how my client’s life experiences, characteristics, and psychological disposition might shape their ability to lead. And over time, I’ve come to see how the childhood experiences of bosses – whether traumatic or privileged, rigid or chaotic – reverberate powerfully into the organisations they lead.
How household hierarchies echo in the workplace
There are, of course, many things that shape the people we become. But one of those things is the household dynamics we grow up with. Indeed, it makes sense that the relationships we witness in childhood go on to shape our values and priorities later in life.
Here, there’s an interesting study that describes one of the ways the hierarchies that exist in the households we are raised in go on to influence how we treat people in adulthood. The authors found evidence to suggest that CEOs who were raised in homes where the father was the main breadwinner and more educated than the mother were more likely to allocate larger budgets to male division managers. Early gender norms, absorbed in childhood, continued to ripple into the workplace decades later. Because life is complex and layered, it’s difficult to draw direct causation, but these findings are profound because they shed light on the way domestic hierarchies can silently reinforce professional inequalities.
How birth order influences leadership style
Another interesting connection can be drawn from birth order theory, which suggests that our familial position influences our personality traits and leadership tendencies. To put it simply, firstborns are often natural leaders. One study found that firstborns tend to take up leadership roles when placed in leaderless groups, drawn to positions of responsibility and authority. Meanwhile, some research shows that youngest siblings, known for being risk-taking, rebellious and creative, are more inclined toward entrepreneurship. Lastly, middle children, skilled in diplomacy from navigating sibling dynamics, tend to excel in collaborative environments. Accordingly, one study found that caring for younger siblings, especially sisters, fosters responsibility and prosocial behaviour – traits that translate into more socially responsible leadership as CEOs.
In sum, the initial relationships we form with our siblings can have a significant impact on the way we perceive ourselves and the way that we navigate relationships with others later in life.
How parenting styles can influence leadership qualities
Lastly, there is evidence to explain how the parenting styles people grow up with can go on to impact the ways they lead later in life. In particular, the emotional climate a child grows up in – what psychologists call the “constellation of attitudes” communicated by caregivers – can provide important context when trying to understand how leaders view authority, risk, empathy, and collaboration as adults.
For example, authoritative parenting – marked by warmth, clear boundaries, and open dialogue – is often linked to higher self-esteem, stronger social skills, and a greater sense of responsibility in children. Entrepreneurial leaders raised in such homes are more likely to become people-centred leaders. They tend to listen, build consensus, and create inclusive workplaces. Having grown up with room to express themselves and negotiate with authority, they are often less controlling and more trusting of their teams.
By contrast, authoritarian households, where children are raised in an environment that is highly controlled and emotionally cold, are expected to follow rules without question and can tend toward more top-down, directive, and sometimes rigid leadership styles.
Equally, leaders raised in permissive or neglectful environments, where boundaries were weak or inconsistent, might struggle with control – either clamping down too tightly or letting go too easily, creating confusion and instability in their organisations.
These things, of course, aren’t fixed destinies – but these theories, which explain the potential impacts of parenting dynamics, can help explain why two similarly qualified people respond so differently under pressure.
The case for emotional and experiential diversity
It’s important to say that these things aren’t all down to our family upbringings. Educational institutions, peer relationships, life experiences and professional mentoring also play a critical role. But recognising the legacy of leaders’ early lives may help explain why two equally qualified leaders might behave so differently in a crisis – one seeking consensus, another asserting control. Indeed, when we think about workplace cultures, we should not only think about qualifications or performance, but also about our colleagues’ emotional intelligence, characteristics and attitudes.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, this understanding reinforces the case for diversity in leadership. Not just demographic diversity, but diversity of experience, including childhood experiences. Because what we carry with us from those early years doesn’t just shape who we are – it shapes the cultures we build, the decisions we make, and the futures we lead others toward.
