How do incompetent men become CEOs?

 

In Summary

There are three popular explanations for the clear underrepresentation of women in management. They are not capable, they are not interested, or they are interested and capable, but not able to break the glass ceiling – the invisible career barrier, based on gender stereotypes, that prevents women from accessing the higher ranks of power.

Conservatives and chauvinists tend to endorse the first explanation. Liberals and feminists prefer the third, and those somewhere in the middle are usually drawn to the second. What if they are all missing the big picture?

The main reason for the uneven management sex ratio is often the inability to discern the difference between confidence and competence. That is, because we commonly misinterpret displays of confidence as signs of competence, we are fooled into believing that men are better leaders than women.

In other words, when it comes to leadership, the only advantage that men have over women is the fact that manifestations of hubris – often disguised as charisma or charm – are commonly mistaken for leadership potential, and that these occur much more frequently in men than in women.

This is consistent with the finding that leaderless groups have a natural tendency to elect self-centred, overconfident and narcissistic individuals as leaders, and that these personality characteristics aren’t equally common in men and women.

Psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud argued that leaders are in part created when a group of people (the followers) replace their own narcissistic tendencies with those of another person (the leader), such that their love for the leader is a disguised form of self-love or a substitute for their inability to love themselves.

“Another person’s narcissism,” Freud wrote, “has a great attraction for those who have renounced part of their own ... as if we envied them for maintaining a blissful state of mind.”

The truth of the matter is that men from pretty much anywhere in the world often think that they are smarter than women. Yet arrogance and overconfidence are inversely related to leadership talent - the ability to build and maintain high-performing teams, and to inspire others to set aside their selfish agendas in order to work for the common interests of the group.

Indeed, be it in sports, politics or business, the best leaders are usually humble, and whether through nature or nurture, humility is a much more common feature in women than in men.

For example, women outperform men on emotional intelligence, which is a strong driver of modest behaviours.

Furthermore, a quantitative review of gender differences in personality involving more than 23,000 participants in 26 cultures (published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2001) indicated that women were more sensitive, considerate and humble than men.

This was arguably one of the least counterintuitive findings in the history of the social sciences. An even clearer picture emerges when one examines the darker side of our personalities. For instance, data from the personality assessment firm, Hogan Assessment Systems, shows that men are consistently more arrogant, manipulative and risk-prone than women.

The paradoxical implication is that the same psychological characteristics that enable male managers to rise to the top of the corporate ladders are actually responsible for their downfall.

As a result, too many incompetent people are promoted to management jobs.

Unsurprisingly, the mythical image of a strong leader embodies many of the characteristics commonly found in personality disorders, such as narcissism, psychopathy, and extravagant theatricality.

The sad thing isn’t that these mythical figures are unrepresentative of the average manager, but that the average manager will fail precisely for having these characteristics.
Good leadership has always been the exception, not the norm.

So it seems a little odd that so much of the recent debate over getting women to “lean in” has focused on getting them to adopt more of the dysfunctional leadership traits commonly associated with men. Yes, people with these behaviours are often our leaders, but should they be?

Most of the character traits that are truly advantageous for effective leadership are predominantly found in those who initially fail to impress others with their management talent. This is especially true for women.

There is now compelling scientific evidence to suggest that women are more likely to adopt more effective leadership strategies than men.

Most notably, in a comprehensive review of 45 studies, published in 2003 in the Psychological Bulletin, Alice Eagly and colleagues showed that female managers were more likely to elicit respect and pride from their followers, communicated their vision effectively, and empowered and mentored subordinates.

They were found to approach problem-solving in more flexible and creative ways, and to fairly reward direct reports.

In contrast, male managers were statistically less likely to bond or connect with their subordinates, and were more inept at rewarding them for their performance.

Although these findings may reflect a sampling bias that require women to be more qualified and competent than men in order to be chosen as leaders, there is no way of really knowing until that bias is eliminated.

In sum, there’s no denying that women’s path to leadership positions is paved with many barriers, one of which is a very thick glass ceiling. But a much bigger problem is the lack of career obstacles for incompetent men, and the fact that we tend to equate leadership with the very psychological features that make the average man a more inept leader than the average woman.

The result is a system that rewards men for their incompetence while punishing women for their competence.

The writer is an authority in personality profiling and psychometric testing. He is a professor of business psychology at University College London and author of Confidence: Overcoming Low Self-Esteem, Insecurity and Self-Doubt. -NYT