So there I was, attracted by an article entitled, “2 Signs That Instantly Identify Someone With Bad Leadership Skills.” Clicking away like curious little moth on a light bulb.
I wondered if perhaps there might be an ounce of unprecedented insight to be found. I’m very fascinated by “bad leadership” because in today’s corporate world of incessant turnover, obsessive purging of the ranks, zero employer investment (with equal measures of employee investment), and lack of any sense of loyalty whatsoever from any side, bad leadership is the norm. Anyone can (and does) become a manager. One must posture boldly, speak with misbegotten authority and massage the right social shoulders, and you’re in! Today’s workplace values “EQ” above all.
So yeah, I was curious.
The article began innocuously enough with vague truisms. I wasn’t denying and in fact, was willing to continue.
Egomaniacs are on the rise, especially within the leadership ranks of companies across the world, which is detrimental to good business outcomes.
Leadership and management expert and best-selling author Ken Blanchard warns us:
The ego is one of the biggest barriers to people working together effectively. When people get caught up in their egos, it erodes their effectiveness. That’s because the combination of false pride and self-doubt created by an overactive ego gives people a distorted image of their own importance. When that happens, people see themselves as the center of the universe and they begin to put their own agenda, safety, status, and gratification ahead of those affected by their thoughts and actions.
The challenge is keeping such self-centered leaders and managers from taking their teams or companies down a path toward self-destruction. After all, we speak of personality characteristics–some of which border on personality disorders.
So how can we curtail the mechanisms that keep feeding egomaniacs into the higher echelons of corporate society? The answer is not so simple. It will require a systemic shift not only in our leadership selection processes but in our collective minds.
Fair enough. Today’s rampant egomania, perpetuated by the paradigm of social media and the facile social structures it spawns, has settled over the workplace, leaving our offices ravaged by overconfident incompetence which often steers the dynamic of the specific organization.
I continued reading and then, like a brick wall, the author threw his ulterior cards on the table.
Cuckdom reared its ugly head. What could you possibly expect from a “man” who characterizes himself as Founder and Chief Human Officer?
What we think true leadership is is far from the truth. Psychologist Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, chief talent scientist at ManpowerGroup and a professor of business psychology at University College London and at Columbia University, points out that we’ve historically equated leadership with personality traits statistically more likely to be found in men: confidence and charisma.
Bold type is ALL mine. My BS meter sprang into action. Here we go. Author Marcel Schwantes, self-hating man and worshiper of the unicorny fem-power narrative, goes on to advise:
In his phenomenal and alarming book Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders? (And How to Fix It), he explains how these same two characteristics can later backfire as overconfidence, narcissism, and even psychopathy, resulting in disaster.
Here’s why you should not reward people–men or women alike–with the two masculine traits we have historically elevated as “leadership material” since the industrial age.
OK. Nice hedging of your generalization, Marcel.
I wonder if Marcel, of “Leadership from the Core” fame, has ever worked a day in a real workplace environment, not that fairy tale HR-clouded cell of platitudes and soft human fuzzies where the “female way” is blindly esteemed.
According to Chamorro-Premuzic, the best leaders combine IQ (intellectual intelligence) with EQ (emotional intelligence), which enable personal effectiveness and self-awareness. While both males and females are equal when it comes to IQ, studies show that women have greater EQ and, in general, perform better as leaders.
Chamorro-Premuzic also points out that a high EQ is also associated with people-centered leaders who are more humble, honest, and ethical. To his point, the shift to focusing on selecting and developing more leaders with these traits–as competencies–would also help correct the gender imbalance in higher leadership ranks, since the underlying issue remains that we, as a society, lack valuing these traits in the leaders we choose.
Marcel neglects to mention that EQ, like IQ, can be wielded malevolently as well, and in the realm of liberated, empowered women, frequently is expressed in such a self-interested manner. Marcel, like all virtue-signaling SJW’s in today’s modern environment, fails to recognize that all people, as he inadvertently messages, are innately corrupt and abusive when handed “power.”
Women are equally spiteful and narcissistic. Except, in women we don’t call it charisma or confidence. These are “masculine” denotations of the concomitant feminine traits of emotional coercion and social manipulation, two traits found in abundance in female leadership. But leadership cloaked under the auspices of such a toolkit of deranged controlling, power-hungry mechanisms, is “good” according to manginas like Marcel.