May 11, 2019 "Men in leadership roles may be incompetent, but can we all detect it?": Today I found this article by Harvey Schachter in the Globe and Mail. The article was good. I then read the comments and some were negative saying it was "smearing men." Most of the comments were intelligent and interesting to read.
Many people moan that their boss is inept, mean, erratic, lazy or otherwise incompetent. You may have raised such complaints in the past, or now. Most leaders, of course, are male.
“What if those two observations – that most leaders are bad and most leaders are male – are causally linked?
In other words, would the prevalence of bad leadership decrease if fewer men, and more women were in charge?” Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, a professor of business psychology at University College London and Columbia Business School, asks in his new book Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders (And How to Fix It).
In other words, would the prevalence of bad leadership decrease if fewer men, and more women were in charge?” Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, a professor of business psychology at University College London and Columbia Business School, asks in his new book Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders (And How to Fix It).
If that isn’t provocative enough, Prof. Chamorro-Premuzic, who is also chief talent scientist at Manpower Group, suggests the underrepresentation of women in leadership ranks is not because of their lack of ability or motivation, but due to our inability to detect incompetence in men.
“When men are considered for leadership positions, the same traits that predict their downfall are commonly mistaken – even celebrated – as signs of leadership potential or talent. Consequently, men’s character flaws help them emerge as leaders because they are disguised as attractive leadership qualities,” he says.
“When men are considered for leadership positions, the same traits that predict their downfall are commonly mistaken – even celebrated – as signs of leadership potential or talent. Consequently, men’s character flaws help them emerge as leaders because they are disguised as attractive leadership qualities,” he says.
He highlights confidence and self-absorption, which we need to see as red flags in leaders rather than attractive signs of charisma or authority.
We can mistake confidence for competence, but he says research shows no such linkage. As for self-absorption, we know that narcissism is unhealthy and narcissistic leaders dangerous, but we still get tricked.
We can mistake confidence for competence, but he says research shows no such linkage. As for self-absorption, we know that narcissism is unhealthy and narcissistic leaders dangerous, but we still get tricked.
And yes, there are confident and self-absorbed women who are leaders. He says studies show gender differences in narcissism have been declining over recent decades, not because men are shedding such tendencies, but because women have become more narcissistic.
“This change reflects the danger of encouraging women to lean in or act more like men to climb the corporate ladder,” he writes.
“This change reflects the danger of encouraging women to lean in or act more like men to climb the corporate ladder,” he writes.
While the quality of confidence is a positive trait in leaders, overconfident leaders put themselves forward for tasks they are incapable of handling. Women are generally assumed to be less confident but, he says, they are internally confident.
They don’t display it as noticeably, however, or are not perceived by others as assertive.
And that may be self-protective: He says we are less likely to tolerate high confidence in women than men. Men are more likely to be overconfident, he says, and suggests that is because we live in a world where their flaws are forgiven and strengths magnified.
They don’t display it as noticeably, however, or are not perceived by others as assertive.
And that may be self-protective: He says we are less likely to tolerate high confidence in women than men. Men are more likely to be overconfident, he says, and suggests that is because we live in a world where their flaws are forgiven and strengths magnified.
What should we do? We need to start by realizing gender imbalance in organizational leadership may reflect mistakes in evaluation, and that we may be using the wrong tools.
In Scaling Leadership, Robert Anderson and William Adams present a competency model in the form of a circle – you may have seen similar ones – with 29 components, more than we can easily grasp. But they break it down into two parts, which they call creative (18 competencies) and reactive (11 tendencies).
The latter are the problematic ones, strengths that are being misused, or “run reactively,” as they put it: Among those are behaviours such as:
In Scaling Leadership, Robert Anderson and William Adams present a competency model in the form of a circle – you may have seen similar ones – with 29 components, more than we can easily grasp. But they break it down into two parts, which they call creative (18 competencies) and reactive (11 tendencies).
The latter are the problematic ones, strengths that are being misused, or “run reactively,” as they put it: Among those are behaviours such as:
- Complying: This involves a leader acquiring a sense of self-worth and security by complying with expectations of others. The person can be conservative, pleasing, conformist or passive.
- Protecting: The leader protects himself by withdrawing and remaining distant. It includes arrogance, being critical and being distant from others.
- Controlling: The need to develop self-worth through task accomplishment. The person seeks flawless results from others, is driven, ambitious and autocratic.
Those are warning signs, but they can be mistaken for positive leadership traits because they have some helpful aspects – so beware.
We have to change our thinking in promoting people, to find competent men and women, and weed out incompetent men and women. We need to be aware that a lot of recent research is favouring so-called feminine skills – such as empathy, listening and bringing people together – as advantages.
We have to change our thinking in promoting people, to find competent men and women, and weed out incompetent men and women. We need to be aware that a lot of recent research is favouring so-called feminine skills – such as empathy, listening and bringing people together – as advantages.
McKinsey & Co. suggested in a report last October that at the beginning of their tenures most chief executives dramatically change their leadership team – two-thirds of CEOs replace at least half of their top team.
But those teams remain as gender imbalanced as at the start. The consultants suggest it’s a missed opportunity for closing the gender gap. Prof. Chamorro-Premuzic’s book suggests it may be a missed opportunity for improving competence at the top.
But those teams remain as gender imbalanced as at the start. The consultants suggest it’s a missed opportunity for closing the gender gap. Prof. Chamorro-Premuzic’s book suggests it may be a missed opportunity for improving competence at the top.
Cannonballs
- CAVE is an acronym for Citizens Against Virtually Everything – people who resist all change, psychologist Laura Methot says in Rotman Management magazine. How many CAVE dwellers in your organization?
- The glass ceiling is a familiar term but the glass cliff is relatively new: A widely known phenomenon, backed by experimental research, that women are often installed as leader in times of potential crisis, essentially set up to fail.
- “We think women are good at crisis, but we also think women make good scapegoats,” University of Exeter Professor Michelle Ryan recently told an INSEAD conference, pointing to former Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer and British Prime Minister Theresa May as examples.
My opinion: I already posted a 2017 Globe and Mail article about that on my blog:
- Management scholar Warren Bennis said: “Becoming a leader is synonymous with becoming yourself. It is precisely that simple, and it is also that difficult.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/careers/management/article-men-in-leadership-roles-may-be-incompetent-but-can-we-all-detect-it/
There are 17 comments:
Industrial Research
The study could make for interesting reading. How was performance measured in the education and health care industries, where women are the majority of managers and front line workers?
Can we say that our schools are providing world class results?
Are cost improvements being implemented?
Are student scores improving?
Are clients (parents, students, and taxpayers) happy with the results?
Are employees (teachers) happy, as demonstrated by high morale, low absenteeism, and no work stoppages?
In health care are cost efficiencies being found?
Is access to medical services improving?
Are clients happy with the results?
Are employees happy, as demonstrated by high morale and low absenteeism?
Can we say that our schools are providing world class results?
Are cost improvements being implemented?
Are student scores improving?
Are clients (parents, students, and taxpayers) happy with the results?
Are employees (teachers) happy, as demonstrated by high morale, low absenteeism, and no work stoppages?
In health care are cost efficiencies being found?
Is access to medical services improving?
Are clients happy with the results?
Are employees happy, as demonstrated by high morale and low absenteeism?
Mr Schacter's logical fallacy runs thus: most managers are men; many managers are incompetent; ergo men are incompetent and women are competent.
Of course it can be detected except for, males are given the benefit of the doubt and the fact that people still adhere to the old adage that males are the providers of the family.
"males are the providers of the family"
c.f. divorce settlements
c.f. divorce settlements
I know all too well what it's like to work for a female, Machiavellian boss.
For that type, it's all about catering to the suck-ups and schmoozing to the higher ups.
That's what passes for leadership.
They are narcissistic, phony, manipulative - extraordinary actresses.
Most female bosses are not like that - but the ones that are cause untold damage.
For that type, it's all about catering to the suck-ups and schmoozing to the higher ups.
That's what passes for leadership.
They are narcissistic, phony, manipulative - extraordinary actresses.
Most female bosses are not like that - but the ones that are cause untold damage.
personal axe to grind Tilly?
Harvey Shateater.
Actually, in contrast to many of the opinions in the comments here, there is compelling research to support Mr. Schachter presenting the data from the years of research The Leadership Circle has done.
The most recent TLC research looked at female and male executives who their peers and employees rated as either highly 'creative' (high positive impact on business results and morale) or highly 'reactive' (low positive impact on business results and morale).
Once the data was 'equalized', a significantly higher percentage of the most 'creative' leaders were female and more of the 'reactive' leaders were male.
Yes, there are some incompetent female leaders and some highly competent make leaders, but it's not equal - on average, there are somewhat (not huge, not minimal) more less competent male leaders.
As a male corporate leadership coach and trainer for 30 years and someone who has worked with Leadership Circle model and feedback tool with hundreds of executives, I can vouch for Mr Schacter's analysis.
So while it may not feel comfortable, it's past time to acknowledge that some accepted wisdom about leadership styles and qualities is just not true.
The most recent TLC research looked at female and male executives who their peers and employees rated as either highly 'creative' (high positive impact on business results and morale) or highly 'reactive' (low positive impact on business results and morale).
Once the data was 'equalized', a significantly higher percentage of the most 'creative' leaders were female and more of the 'reactive' leaders were male.
Yes, there are some incompetent female leaders and some highly competent make leaders, but it's not equal - on average, there are somewhat (not huge, not minimal) more less competent male leaders.
As a male corporate leadership coach and trainer for 30 years and someone who has worked with Leadership Circle model and feedback tool with hundreds of executives, I can vouch for Mr Schacter's analysis.
So while it may not feel comfortable, it's past time to acknowledge that some accepted wisdom about leadership styles and qualities is just not true.
"...once the data was 'equalized', a significantly higher percentage of the most 'creative' leaders were female..."
How on Earth were the data "equalized"?
Did the study carefully ensure that the average age of the two groups, males and females, was identical?
Or was the group of women younger?
A difference of just a few years of age, male or female, can make a huge impact on creativity, for reasons both cohort based, years of experience based and biology based.
Setting aside such questions about scientific controls of disparate groups, how on Earth is the past decades (more sexism against females thus massive selection pressure against women, those who succeeded must be extremely good) in any way in congruence with the idea that oh, if we today in 2019 just throw lots more women into the pot, it will be a big improvement?
There is an assumption in there that all women today are as good as those who managed to navigate against the odds in past decades.
You curiously ignored one of the major themes alluded to, on the board: If this article had smeared women (instead of men) using a similar absence of presented evidence, it would never have made it past the editors...
How on Earth were the data "equalized"?
Did the study carefully ensure that the average age of the two groups, males and females, was identical?
Or was the group of women younger?
A difference of just a few years of age, male or female, can make a huge impact on creativity, for reasons both cohort based, years of experience based and biology based.
Setting aside such questions about scientific controls of disparate groups, how on Earth is the past decades (more sexism against females thus massive selection pressure against women, those who succeeded must be extremely good) in any way in congruence with the idea that oh, if we today in 2019 just throw lots more women into the pot, it will be a big improvement?
There is an assumption in there that all women today are as good as those who managed to navigate against the odds in past decades.
You curiously ignored one of the major themes alluded to, on the board: If this article had smeared women (instead of men) using a similar absence of presented evidence, it would never have made it past the editors...
This is a strange article that seems to have, as its main intent, a smearing of men.
He says things are bad because we are poor at detecting incompetence in men..
... but provides no evidence we are any better at detecting incompetence in women.
He says things are bad because men are too often over-confident narcissists...
... but provides no evidence that women are any less often over-confident narcissists.
And in spite of that lack of evidence on either of the two major fronts, the article nonetheless smears men and only men, and proposes that replacing men with women would make things better.
Wow.
If this article had smeared women using a similar absence of evidence, it would never have made it past the editors.
Fueling identity politics with gasoline, it's there for you: The Globe and Mail.
He says things are bad because we are poor at detecting incompetence in men..
... but provides no evidence we are any better at detecting incompetence in women.
He says things are bad because men are too often over-confident narcissists...
... but provides no evidence that women are any less often over-confident narcissists.
And in spite of that lack of evidence on either of the two major fronts, the article nonetheless smears men and only men, and proposes that replacing men with women would make things better.
Wow.
If this article had smeared women using a similar absence of evidence, it would never have made it past the editors.
Fueling identity politics with gasoline, it's there for you: The Globe and Mail.
Mr. Schachter is a little behind the times with his information. Numerous Stats Canada reports indicate that women dominate in many professions, including professions such as health, education, human resources, and the public sector.
Currently, in my federal government division, 28 of the 34 managers are women. Many a product of EE legislation.
Try to stay current Mr. Schachter.
Currently, in my federal government division, 28 of the 34 managers are women. Many a product of EE legislation.
Try to stay current Mr. Schachter.
They are making inroads in all professions.
In 2019, how is such bigotry allowed? Especially, in a respected newspaper like the G&M.
I actually checked to see I wasn't on the CBC site.
I actually checked to see I wasn't on the CBC site.
The points Mr Schachter makes are generally true, with one glaring exception.
Incompetence is not limited to those with external genitalia; it's an equal opportunity thing. I have worked for both genders throughout my varied career, and have not noticed that one innately has more flaws than another. The only reason that there are more incompetent men in management is that there are more men in management.
Really, we are well into the new millenium. Surely we can dispense with these ridiculous preconceived notions about confidence and competence in the workplace. Yes, men and women are different. No, their differences do not make one inferior to the other -- in management or in any other life pursuit.
Incompetence is not limited to those with external genitalia; it's an equal opportunity thing. I have worked for both genders throughout my varied career, and have not noticed that one innately has more flaws than another. The only reason that there are more incompetent men in management is that there are more men in management.
Really, we are well into the new millenium. Surely we can dispense with these ridiculous preconceived notions about confidence and competence in the workplace. Yes, men and women are different. No, their differences do not make one inferior to the other -- in management or in any other life pursuit.
Good, solid hit-piece , by the misandric Mr. Schachter.
I think this is somewhat make bashing.
The same can be said about incompetent women in leadership roles.
As an aside, over the past number of years in IT positions, I was more likely to have a female manager than a male. This whole thing about lack of female leaders is not as accurate as it used to be.
The same can be said about incompetent women in leadership roles.
As an aside, over the past number of years in IT positions, I was more likely to have a female manager than a male. This whole thing about lack of female leaders is not as accurate as it used to be.
There are some strange assumptions here. Assuming incompetence and gender is why there are so few women leaders. It is overtly ignorant.
The next assumption is that leadership and skill competency go hand in hand. Corporations have practiced the interchangeability of roles between manager’s for years. Leading people to charge over walls and attack a problem doesn’t;t require competence, only confidence.
The last assumption about bling ambition driving incompetence upwards will hold true for women. They are arriving at new job levels in corporations only to find that having the personal education, drive and energy is not good enough to be a leader. They need a cadre of people who stand behind them.
The next assumption is that leadership and skill competency go hand in hand. Corporations have practiced the interchangeability of roles between manager’s for years. Leading people to charge over walls and attack a problem doesn’t;t require competence, only confidence.
The last assumption about bling ambition driving incompetence upwards will hold true for women. They are arriving at new job levels in corporations only to find that having the personal education, drive and energy is not good enough to be a leader. They need a cadre of people who stand behind them.
No comments:
Post a Comment