How can we save the New Boss?

From the old boss ways?


I was reading the most interesting article yesterday. Written by Thomas Chamorro-Premuzic, titled “Why Do So Many Men Become Incompetent Leaders?”

Yep, sit back and let that one marinate for a moment. The title alone offers an excellent opportunity for a bias check upon your first reaction. There are not many men I know of, including myself, that want to be considered incompetent as a leader, as a boss, in general.

The evidence is pretty substantial that there is a majority of men in leadership positions not only in America but across the globe. Recent numbers show a 30–35% gap between women in corporate leadership positions and men. So let’s face it, odds are you’re going to come across more incompetent male leaders than women right? That premise is in a way, too simple an explanation. And though I will touch upon it later, the reality of this issue goes much deeper.

When we explore the DNA of a weak leader, specifically in this case a male, it is the presence of optimism bias that is most obvious. Its existence shows a preference as it relates to how leaders are chosen to lead to start with. Optimism in a sense that be, if you are male, you most likely are better suited to lead. Beginning with the charisma element, this is a huge factor at play in leadership selection across the board. And at the risk of taking advantage of a moment of levity, so does hitting a golf ball and telling a good joke. But even that bears confirmation of a further bias when considering qualifications. Believe it.

“In my view, the main reason for the uneven management sex ratio is our inability to discern between confidence and competence. That is because we (people in general) commonly misinterpret displays of confidence as a sign of competence, we are fooled into believing that men are better leaders than women.” ~ Thomas Chamorro-Premuzic

Personally speaking, I spent many years working within an established male-dominated environment at a top 20 Fortune 500 organization. The bias was incredibly thick, and the organization struggled to move past it even through lawsuits and affirmative action processes.

It took me some time to grasp this disconnect until I found the intention of leadership was centered on some basic tenets of supposed credible leadership. If you could “wow” a room with your over the top confidence and slather the decision makers with charm, you held a high chance at moving up the ladder.

Note: If you held that confidence and charisma is a self-serving, potentially narcissistic way which had no connectability to your teams or workforce… um, just results right? Just get results.
All the better. Not necessarily.
So with a predominant mindset of entitlement even if you were incapable of displaying a single soft skill you were held in high regard. I want to be clear that in some cases there may also exist managerial inabilities in such indices as interpersonal communication, or critical thinking skills, and the take at the table was that’s a workaround that can be improved upon.

Ok then.

Again, the point made here by Chamorro-Premuzic is that men struggle to get past that “I’m the best, the greatest,” and that approach in my leadership is critical. The soft skills that men struggle with like, humility, self-awareness, and empathy are integral to leadership development and competence and more likely held by women.

I will add that for any of us in a leadership position if the belief in our greatness is based on a false values system; then that “person” we may love so much may just be, well, incompetent.
Moreover, the lack of regard for these skills by those in decision making roles within an organization further derails any woman’s opportunity at a fair shot in the promotion process.

So, I’m curious about an approach that states it may not be solely about one’s genetic makeup that prompts the possibility of incompetence.

Again, it is evident that men hold the majority of the leadership positions on the planet. The numbers bear it out, and it’s unarguable. And, the traditionalist mindset of what denotes “good” leadership still struggles with embracing the principles of transformational leadership supported by the competencies of emotional intelligence.

And that begs the question. Without recognizing the importance of these soft skills those charged with identifying and developing the next leaders will likely continue to “knee jerk” their way through addressing the lack of women in those crucial roles.

Let me explain. I mentioned earlier that the bias towards males who displayed high confidence, and a charged ego were the standard for the “next” leader. If the traditional mindset is not challenged and soft skills are only given lip service what is the possible outcome here for women? I would say conformity. I saw it at the large “machine” I worked for, and in some cases, it worked, but those cases were few.

Then, if in their minds and possibly the thoughts of the person sponsoring them, women’s choices for moving past the status quo of upward mobility, are limited to none; what changes? If the understanding is that I (a woman) can become upwardly mobile by asserting myself in a narcissistic, overly charismatic fashion and showing everyone in the room that I’ve got “teeth,” then what? I’ll ask again, what changes?

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” ~ Pete Townshend

Daniel Goleman spoke on a recent Coaching for Leaders podcast, “Getting Better at Empathy, Ep. 391” with Dave Stachowiak, about the need for such a shift from the self-admiration trait so desired by most organizations. Goleman spoke to the intent of being mindful and developing time to be aware of your thoughts, emotions, and feelings. Most importantly, how you resonate within them and what reactions they produce.

He calls this opening your heart and his belief that the more you practice this skill, the more likely neuroplasticity takes place. The power you develop to identify your feelings and emotions will create a steady path in your brain, your circuitry so to speak, and will also strengthen your ability to recognize these emotions and feelings in others.

Thus you reveal your leadership on an empathic level, and those who work with you are resonating towards that mindfulness.

Without question, in the corporate environment, all organizations have their own “emotional norms.” Meaning that it is evident what types of emotions are accepted and unaccepted within the organization. To understand that better I’ll share a personal experience from the organization I grew up in. To display that you may be compassionate or supportive of an underperforming group or individual was a sign of weakness. While the previously mentioned emotion of certainty, as it pertains to superiority, was a leading indicator of your ability to lead.

Part of the critical factor in the development of future leaders, women, and men, lies in the organization’s awareness to see that a shift in these emotional norms from what is prevalent today. Moreover, it will need to be given proper attention. Without that attention, the standards of the traditional corporate environment will still hold firm in what is satisfactory and agreeable in the development of its leaders. So change it must. And the result will be that not only will women have the opportunity so deserved, men for possibly the first time will gain instruction, knowledge, and awareness of the importance of leading with transparency and mindfulness.

The article speaks to an acknowledgeable truth; incompetent men can hold back the potential advancement of women. That one physiological makeup is held in a higher standard than another, is evident. But without acknowledging the fact the leadership development process in place today in abundance in the corporate world is failing to produce mindful and transparent leaders, the point is being missed for real change.

If that is not questioned, not recognized, as a significant detriment to all sexes ability to learn how to lead; then the approaches of the past will continue to produce the same static results.
Familiar results bought on by incompetent leadership driven by charisma, and the bias of optimistic confidence. Leadership development programs must reflect the elements of emotional intelligence and the intent to place transformational leadership guidelines at the forefront of instruction. It is with those intentions that great leadership will find its way into the boardrooms and operations of business across the globe.