Many organizations suffer from poor leadership. And that is a problem because leaders make or break organizations and without good leaders no motivated and driven employees. Fortunately, the solution is closer than you might think, and for many improvement comes from an unexpected source.
Did you know that in America, the majority of employees who leave their organizations do so because of dissatisfaction with their direct supervisor? The same study by research agency Gallup, the State of the American Manager, also shows that 65% of employed Americans indicate that they would rather have a new manager than a salary increase. You may think that the situation may be very different in the Netherlands. But also in our own country we regularly see organizations at the HPO Center where employees have completely lost their motivation.
The reason for this is all too often ignored by their managers and they leave the real problem unexposed. As it turns out, many leaders are executives characterized by great self-confidence. And this is an important attribute which today is abundantly used to select for leadership positions. Unfortunately, these are not the better better leaders. And they also chase a lot of good talent out of the company. Where does it go wrong?
Wrong fixation on confident leaders.
In past times, we lived in groups and knew everyone in this community from cradle to grave. A new leader was chosen after everyone had been able to observe the behavior of this group member for years. Today, we often have to assess candidates during selection processes. And things often go wrong there. Organizational psychologist Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic writes in his interesting book Why do so many incompetent men become Leaders (2019) that in selection procedures we use, often have a fixation on self-confidence in leaders. In addition to knowledge and skills, we mainly look at how confident someone appears. Where knowledge and know how are skills, self-confidence is believing in these skills. Unfortunately, there appears to be little overlap between actually being able and believing to being able.
Snakes in suits
Falling for confident people in leadership positions is not a good choice. And yet self-assurance has been a decisive factor in selections for decades. Do you recognize this: “came across as more convincing,” “I saw him do it,” “I think he can handle it well”? Then it is good to know that confidence in people easily turns into arrogance, and arrogance results in bad leaders. Once appointed, they dominate every meeting, only do work with which make them look good, profile themselves with gusto while not paying attention to their employees, not hearing and (thus) not motivating. You do not immediately see that, but after a while in the new position, arrogance no longer masks the incompetence. Leaders who display these characteristics are doing “well” in our business and the higher up the ladder, the more difficult their behavior is to recognize. An interesting fact in this context comes from the tube of Peter Wright, author of the book CEO Narcissism. Where approximately 2% of the world population can be classified as a narcissist or psychopath, leadership positions in organizations include an average of 5% narcissists and 4-20% psychopaths. There are quite a few, and they are also three times more men than women. That is partly the result of their upbringing: dominant or authoritarian behavior is completely suppressed in girls. Men are less corrected about these personality traits and arrogance is also a natural result of privilege. You have been warned.
Unconscious bias
We do know that good leadership is important for the development of the organization and all employees. And even better: we also know what “good leadership” looks like. A large Direction survey of 10,894 Dutch managers (male and female) shows that there is a great need for and appreciation for leaders who are pleasant, humble, friendly and empathetic. These inclusive leaders are currently all too often overlooked in selection procedures. They are ultimately the better leaders, also for your organization, but in practice they lose out to candidates who show great self-confidence. How is that possible? The main reason for this remarkable difference between what we need and select is our unconscious biases: mindbugs. We really have them all in large quantities, including you. These bugs ensure that you do not immediately estimate people with the same qualifications. Those are the same bugs that make us see taller people with lower voices ending up in leadership positions faster than those who are overweight, have a different ethnic background or are women, and certainly women with young children. Our brain makes connections without being asked. That is not unwillingness and poor comfort: we (really!) Do it all. But it is difficult. In this specific case, our brain unsolicited and unconsciously establishes a link between “leadership position” and “self-confidence”. And, it turns out, in 83% of cases also with “man”. Unconsciously, yet. In short: with all available recent scientific insights in 2020, leaders are still too often chosen on the basis of prejudice and gut, our ancestral and evolutionary roots. And we don’t select what we need.
Inclusive leaders for better results
So our unconscious bias predominates too often. “You won’t see it until you realize it,” Cruijff would say. But if you understand it and become aware of what is going on, it is important to exchange primal instinct for reason and knowledge. Because we know what we want. For both organization and employees we need more leaders of the type “pleasant, modest, friendly and empathetic”. Inclusive men and women who ensure satisfied employees who do not want to leave but want to contribute to the growth and prosperity of your organization. There are plenty of them; chances are they already work for you. It is important to see and appreciate them more. Normal men and women are too often overlooked. They are now almost punished for not being arrogant and not being overly self-assured. They are told to “show themselves a bit more”. And: among them there are relatively many women. One of the largest international studies conducted by Zenger & Folkman teaches that leading women around the world, from team leader to executive management, are better rated in 360 degree assessments for performing their leadership task compared to male leaders. This certainly does not mean that all female leaders are good. Just as among male leaders, there are lesser goddesses among women. It is fascinating in this context that 72% of the qualities that managers mention as the most important for their organization are precisely those qualities that female leaders apply more often. Here too, we do not choose what we need: we would like the qualities that female leaders apply more often, and yet women often are not successful in selections for leadership positions. Mindbugs.
Get to work
So science is teaching us to stop referring to self-confidence as a signal for competent leadership. And must stop systematically honoring this quality. Yes, it takes courage to say goodbye to bad leaders. On the other hand, firing one bad leader has four times more effect than hiring one good new leader. Give your employees the leader who inspires them to achieve better results. There is a lot of work to be done. It is necessary to correct the working of the brain when selecting new leaders. By good processes and by making agreements about process and criteria. By choosing that expertise and skills take the leading role. And realizing that current and historical performance is the best predictor of future performance and behavior. Guide people in selection processes to adhere to strict agreements and follow the same structure for all candidates in the process to reduce unconscious prejudices. Make it possible to discuss (again) within all selection and promotion rounds that great self-confidence often masks incompetence. In addition, use objective test methods to measure competencies where possible. Is this already a topic of discussion in your organization? It has to be different than you did and used to. And I promise you: with a different, better result. And, a nice bonus in 2020: if you choose better leaders, you automatically get more women in the top. For more background information also read: Unconscious Bias by Esther Mollema, 2020 and can be ordered via bol.com. If you want to keep following Esther Mollema’s blogs, check out www.esthermollema.nl and sign up for the newsletter.
Sources:
Bohnet, I. (2016). What works. Gender Equality by Design, Harvard University Press.
Chammorro-Premuzic, T (2019) Why do so many incompetent men become leaders? (and how to fix it), Harvard Business Review Press.
Cullen, Z. & & Perez-Truglia, R. The Old Boys’ Club Schmoozing and the Gender Gap, 2019. Harvard Business School.
Grijalva, E. (2015) Gender Differences in Narcissism: A Meta-Analytic Review, Psychological Bulletin.
Huguenin, P., & Gestel, H. W. (2010). Hidden Order. Utrecht: Bohn Stafleu of Loghum
Miller, D. & Eagly. A. & Linn, M (2015) Women’s Representation in Science Predicts National Gender-Science Stereotypes: Evidence From 66 Nations, American Psycholgy Association.
Mollema, E. (2009). 50% more talent: That’s how you score with women. Nieuwegein: Publisher Reunion.
Mollema, E. (2015). Succes in Veelvoud.
Robinson, J. (2008) Turning around Employee Turnover, Gallup Business Journal
Sherwin, B. (2012). Why Women Are More Effective Leaders Than Men. T
heeboom, T. (2014), Does coaching work? A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Coaching on Individual Level Outcomes in an Organizational Context, Journal of Positive Psychology.
Waal, A. A., de (2008). Make your company a top organization! The five pillars for creating a high performance organization. Culemborg: Van Duuren Media.
Wright, P et al., (2004) CEO Narcissism, CEO Humility, and C-Suite Dynamics. Simon & Schuster.
Zenger, J., & Folkman J. (2014 and 2019). Are women better leaders than men? Harvard Business Review. Consulted at https://hbr.org/2019/06/ research-women-score-higher-than-men-in-most-leadership-skills