- Typically, organisations choke at the top with leaders who are self-absorbed, unemotional and without empathy
- These so-called leaders or bosses tend to be aggressive when challenged and are often inclined to validate their sense of infallibility by derogating others
This will elicit disputation. But here it is. We often confuse, self-centered narcissistic behaviour that most leaders exhibit with role or functional competence. Recruiters, selection committees and even voters are often seduced by the allure of grandiose megalomania.
The consequence is that there are too many incompetent people in positions of leadership. And sadly, they are mostly men. There is ample evidence to show that exhibition of hubris, which is typically disguised as charm and self-confidence, is frequently confused for leadership potential and these traits are invariably abundant among men compared to women.
Think about your boss. When asked to answer the question; my boss is, people often have the choicest, unspeakable and unflattering descriptors. The question we must ask is why we end up with so many incompetent men in positions of power or leadership. In many respects the choice of the incompetent leader says more about the group, organisation or citizens.
Consider the example of former US President Donald Trump. In her book Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man, Mary Trump describes Donald Trump as a narcissist for whom lying was primarily a mode of self-aggrandisement to convince other people he was better than he actually was.
As president, Trump exaggerated his achievements. According to the Washington post Trump made 18,000 false statements in nearly four years. His claims about size; the size of his hands, the size of his inaugural crowd and the size of his 2020 electoral win are legendary.
Preference for narcissists and bullies has a psychological basis. Sigmund Freud argued that the psychological process of leadership happens because followers or team members find their own narcissistic inclinations in their leader, and somehow their love for their leaders is an enactment of self-love.
Preference for narcissists and bullies has a psychological basis. Sigmund Freud argued that the psychological process of leadership happens because followers or team members find their own narcissistic inclinations in their leader, and somehow their love for their leaders is an enactment of self-love.
Moreover, studies have shown that the narcissist charm engenders positive first impressions, which facilitates positive appraisal and selection, and aids narcissists to rise to positions of leadership.
Typically, organisations choke at the top with leaders who are self-absorbed, unemotional and without empathy. These so-called leaders or bosses tend to be aggressive when challenged and are often inclined to validate their sense of infallibility by derogating others.
Invariably, this creates a toxic work environment characterised by low levels of engagement and loyalty, and low morale. In such environments, senior to middle managers are always looking for an exit ramp and retention is purely financially motivated.
Organisational and social psychologist Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic suggests that there are no obstacles for incompetent leaders, especially men, to float to the top of organisations. The selection process, Chamorro argues, is driven not by reliable job performance data or evidence but by intuition and incomplete fleeting impressions gleaned from dinner or lunch or selection committee conversations.
At the heart of the preponderance of incompetent people in positions of leadership is flawed and limited tools or processes for identifying and selecting leaders. We tend to equate leadership with confidence, charisma, assertiveness and less with reliable measures of role competence or integrity.