Speaker 1: Welcome to the Psychology Podcast, where we give you insights
Speaker 1: into the mind, brained behavior and creativity. I'm doctor Scott
Speaker 1: Barry Kaufman, and in each episode I have a conversation
Speaker 1: with a guest. He will stimulate your mind and give
Speaker 1: you a greater understanding of yourself, others, and the world
Speaker 1: to live in. Hopefully we'll also provide a glimpse into
Speaker 1: human possibility. Thanks for listening and enjoy the podcast today.
Speaker 1: It's great to have Thomas Chamorro Promutzk on the podcast.
Speaker 1: Thomas is the chief Talent scientist at Manpower Group, a
Speaker 1: professor of Business psychology at University College London and at
Speaker 1: Columbia University, and an associate at Harvard's Entrepreneurial Finance Lab.
Speaker 1: He's the author of Why do so Many Incompetent Men
Speaker 1: Become Leaders? And How To Fix It, as well as
Speaker 1: nine other books and over one hundred and sixty scientific publications.
Speaker 1: He's the co founder of Deeper Signals and Meta Profiling,
Speaker 1: and is a regular contributor to HBr, Fast Company and
Speaker 1: Business Insider. Thomas, so great to chat with you today. Yeah. Likewise,
Speaker 1: thank you for having me, Scott. Yeah, what a interesting
Speaker 1: topic of a book. I didn't see that coming, you know,
Speaker 1: I've seen your other books, and then this one came out.
Speaker 1: I was like, huh, like, why that one? So maybe
Speaker 1: you could tell me the genesis of this topic, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, I considered writing one with the title why
Speaker 1: do so many competent men Become Leaders? But we figured
Speaker 1: it would sell less. Come on now, jokes aside. The
Speaker 1: book originated or came out of an article an essay
Speaker 1: I wrote for HBr in twenty thirteen that was a
Speaker 1: reaction to Cheryl Sandberg's leaning argument. I felt that, you know,
Speaker 1: people needed an alternative in the form of a psychological
Speaker 1: explanation of why so many competent women failed to reach
Speaker 1: the leaders And in my view, the issue was not
Speaker 1: that they weren't leaning in or emulating men, but that
Speaker 1: we're not very good at judging competence in people in general,
Speaker 1: and women stake confidence for competence, you know, unfairly and
Speaker 1: incorrectly reward those who think very highly of themselves even
Speaker 1: when they're not very good, and that that is to
Speaker 1: the detriment of those who have talent but maybe more
Speaker 1: modest stumble, et cetera. Yeah, so I'm trying to understand
Speaker 1: exactly what your narrative differs from the standard narrative. So
Speaker 1: most people focus on underrepresentation of women in leadership positions
Speaker 1: through reasons such as like discrimination, and some psychologists argue
Speaker 1: through motivation, you know, like that women are on average
Speaker 1: or not as motivated for achievement and social status and
Speaker 1: things as men. And so you don't deny some of
Speaker 1: those reasons as well, right, But first of all, you
Speaker 1: don't deny alternative explanations. Yeah, basically multiple factors, right, correct,
Speaker 1: there's always multiple factors, right, And I definitely you know,
Speaker 1: don't deny the kind of contextual socio political, let's say,
Speaker 1: the macro factors that contribute to the glass ceiling. We
Speaker 1: all know, for example, that when countries change maternity and
Speaker 1: paternity laws to make them similar, it immediately creates a
Speaker 1: big difference. You know, these are changes to regulations and
Speaker 1: laws would exist, and you know they are in enhanced
Speaker 1: the politicians. But then when it comes to the psychological reasons,
Speaker 1: typically people focus on either differences and ability or motivation.
Speaker 1: And even though today there are a few data driven
Speaker 1: people who would argue that there are meaningful differences in
Speaker 1: the ability to lead, still often those same people would say, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, it has to do with differences in aspirations motivations.
Speaker 1: And actually, if you look at the science that has
Speaker 1: been published in the last ten fifteen years throughout the
Speaker 1: industrialized world, there aren't any differences anymore. Women are as
Speaker 1: interested in being managers or leaders as men are. Oh
Speaker 1: really exactly so, even though there may still exist gender
Speaker 1: differences on other dimensions, like when we look at interest
Speaker 1: in like math, science versus education, psychology, et cetera, when
Speaker 1: it comes to leadership in particular, there does not seem
Speaker 1: to be gener differences in motivation. That's correct, correct, And
Speaker 1: even if you take, for example, you know, the research
Speaker 1: which I know you're familiar with on you know, traditional
Speaker 1: gender differences invocational interested even if you look at that,
Speaker 1: which is based on kind of much older historical differences
Speaker 1: in gender differences in motivation or vocational interests, you would
Speaker 1: find that typically men are more interested in things, maybe ideas,
Speaker 1: and women are more interested in people. Well, what does
Speaker 1: that tell you about interests in being a manager or
Speaker 1: being a leader, which is primarily about dealing with people?
Speaker 1: What a good point. So, if anything, you can make
Speaker 1: the argument that women are better suited for managing humans. Correct.
Speaker 1: Even when Google fired James deth More for quoting that research,
Speaker 1: actually they failed to interpret that. Even his own interpretation
Speaker 1: is what you have suggested that, if anything, women are
Speaker 1: more naturally inclined to be managers. Yeah, so it's an
Speaker 1: interesting twist and I think it's a good point. So
Speaker 1: I'm glad I'm having you on the podcast today. Thank you.
Speaker 1: So I want to just talk about these reasons that
Speaker 1: you offer for so many incompetent men. You put forward
Speaker 1: three in this t X talk. I watched the viewers.
Speaker 1: I wondering if you can go through all three? Is that? Okay? Sure,
Speaker 1: and we can talk about each one, you know, okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: absolutely so. Well, you know, the main reason is a
Speaker 1: disconnect which exists between people's leadership archetypes, what most people
Speaker 1: in their fantasized views or models of what it is
Speaker 1: to be a leader entails, and the attributes that are
Speaker 1: actually needed to be an effective leader. And so more
Speaker 1: more specifically, I dive into three attributes. The first is
Speaker 1: our emphasis on confidence rather than competence. The second is
Speaker 1: our empats. That's just like, let's go through each one
Speaker 1: and then like have a discussion about it. Sure. So first,
Speaker 1: you know, people focus more on confidence than competence. What
Speaker 1: that means is it's a lot easier to observe. Certainly
Speaker 1: if you look at how leaders are vetted or evaluated
Speaker 1: in most corporations, In most organizations, there's a very very
Speaker 1: strong focus on short term interactions, unstructured interviews, conversations, face
Speaker 1: to face meetings, et cetera, which means that for people,
Speaker 1: it's much easier to observe things like assertiveness confidence than
Speaker 1: to actually figure out whether somebody has competence. In today's world,
Speaker 1: you know, leadership is very complex and unless you have
Speaker 1: great expertise, is going to be very difficult for you
Speaker 1: to evaluate whether someone has good technical skills, domain specific expertise.
Speaker 1: And then even things like intelligence, creativity, curiosity, these things
Speaker 1: are not easily observable, but confidence is. And especially in
Speaker 1: the Western world and primarily in America, we habituated to
Speaker 1: this idea that when people are assertive or they seem confidence,
Speaker 1: they must be good, you know, the kind of fake
Speaker 1: it till you make it idea. Oh yeah, we really
Speaker 1: do have trouble distinuision between these things. And I think, like,
Speaker 1: if I remember correct the Invisible Guerrilla book or that
Speaker 1: Christopher Shabree and co authored, and they talk a lot
Speaker 1: about about that's one of the strong biases among humans,
Speaker 1: is that in ability distinguished between those two, so that
Speaker 1: that's one reason for so many incompetentment. What's the second one.
Speaker 1: The second one is that we emphasize charisma instead of
Speaker 1: focusing on humility. In fact, you know, we have been
Speaker 1: paying lip service to humidity for the past two or
Speaker 1: three decades, quoting books such as Jim Collins's From Good
Speaker 1: to Great saying, oh, yeah, the best leaders are humbled.
Speaker 1: But then if you look at our leadership choices, either
Speaker 1: in organizations or in politics, they very rarely reflect an
Speaker 1: interest in having leaders who are humbled. More often than not,
Speaker 1: we focus on whether they seem to have, you know,
Speaker 1: the X factor, whether they're entertaining. In American presidential elections,
Speaker 1: I think the strongest predictor of who wins, other than
Speaker 1: height is who would you rather have a beer with?
Speaker 1: You know, and you know, that might be nice, but
Speaker 1: most voters we're probably not going to get to have
Speaker 1: a beer with the president, certainly not the current one
Speaker 1: who is a teetotaler. But in general, you know, it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter if you select people with those characters. Is.
Speaker 1: Of course, one can be charismatic and competent, But if
Speaker 1: you focus so much on charisma and select people based
Speaker 1: purely on the impressions they make in televised debates or
Speaker 1: short interactions, you're gonna inadvertently hire a lot of people
Speaker 1: who are not that competent, including some people who might
Speaker 1: have some psychopathic tendencies and some dark side traits. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's a quote of yours you say there's a surplus
Speaker 1: of charismatic leaders with a fascinating dark side. I thought
Speaker 1: that's an interesting quote, exactly, And you know, and it's
Speaker 1: kind of, in a way a vicious circle because we
Speaker 1: all love reading books or watching movies on those leaders
Speaker 1: because they are captivating. But let me tell you, people
Speaker 1: will be much better off if they were managed by
Speaker 1: leaders who are actually quite boring, predictable, and not that psychopathic. Yeah,
Speaker 1: keep it to the television, right, correct, exactly. So the
Speaker 1: third one, yes, two, my third one, yeah, And then
Speaker 1: the third one is, you know, it's more recent in
Speaker 1: a way, but it's quite a common phenomenon, is that
Speaker 1: we're more likely to select individuals who are narcissistic, even
Speaker 1: if it you know, mild narcissistic tendencies, being entitled, self
Speaker 1: obsessed people who are their biggest funds and admirers, and
Speaker 1: who seduces with megalomaniac visions that are impossible to execute,
Speaker 1: then people with integrity, I think certainly if you look
Speaker 1: at the vast number of scandals that have been reported
Speaker 1: in the past ten years, and if there's one big
Speaker 1: learning from the hashtag me to age is that for
Speaker 1: too long, we've selected individuals to leadership roles who feel
Speaker 1: so entitled that they think they can get away with
Speaker 1: murder literally, and they have no limits, and they're not
Speaker 1: very good at self control. And you know, there is
Speaker 1: a general lack of integrity and morality in our choices
Speaker 1: of leaders And when I say choices, you know I
Speaker 1: mean both in democracies when people vote and elect candidates,
Speaker 1: and also in organizations or corporations when HR departments are
Speaker 1: in charge of making these choices. Yeah. So, by linking
Speaker 1: this to narcissism to males, your citing research on the
Speaker 1: statistically significan difference on average between males and females in
Speaker 1: the tree, grandiose narcissism is that right, Yeah, that's correct.
Speaker 1: So the Peter Harms study, and it's interesting in that
Speaker 1: very study meta analysis, you can see that there's a
Speaker 1: worrying chronological effect whereby in the last two or three decades,
Speaker 1: the gender differences and narcissism have been decreasing, mostly because
Speaker 1: women are becoming as narcissistic as men, but men still
Speaker 1: have an advantage. And more importantly, the main point I
Speaker 1: make is that narcissists over index in leadership roles. They
Speaker 1: are at least three or four times more like to
Speaker 1: be in leadership roles than in the you know, in
Speaker 1: kind of employees roles or the over population. Is that
Speaker 1: not just narcissm, but would you say the whole dark triad? Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, as you know, they are often confounded, right, So,
Speaker 1: and sometimes the measures that are use in the study
Speaker 1: might not be pure measures of narcissism, but have some
Speaker 1: elements of Machiavelianism. Certainly, even if you look at much
Speaker 1: of the advice that the self help industry focuses on
Speaker 1: when it comes to helping people become leaders, preaches or
Speaker 1: foments Machiavelian tactics of manipulations. Right, if your way to
Speaker 1: help people become leaders is to help them show off,
Speaker 1: take credit for other people's achievements, blame others for their mistakes,
Speaker 1: brand and you know, be as their way up and
Speaker 1: develop politically political savvy. It looks a lot like a
Speaker 1: House of Cards episode. And you know, there are certainly
Speaker 1: overlapping characteristics between that and being Machiavelian. Yeah, and then
Speaker 1: the third member of the Some people my listeners might
Speaker 1: not know what the dark triad consists of, but Macavelianism, narcisism,
Speaker 1: and subcritical psychopathy. But you know, there's this research try
Speaker 1: and understand what is the dark core of all these
Speaker 1: dark traits. There's even more, because some people have said
Speaker 1: there's even more. There's like sadism, there's spitefulness, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. So there seems to be the stark core
Speaker 1: of callousness and manipulativeness correct and where there are generally
Speaker 1: speaking deficits in empathy and you know, bigger focus or
Speaker 1: attention on advancing one's own individuals self interest, even if
Speaker 1: it comes at the expense of others. You know, and
Speaker 1: I think in a way I like to use sometimes
Speaker 1: the kind of the evolutionary term of the free rider
Speaker 1: phenomenon or effect, because you could see why. You know, certainly,
Speaker 1: if the system is moral enough and high functioning, it
Speaker 1: will always allow for a certain number of individuals who
Speaker 1: take more than what they give and take advantage of
Speaker 1: that system. Where things start going wrong is when the
Speaker 1: majority of people in that system, certainly those who are
Speaker 1: in charge, have these you know, parasitic effects, and that's
Speaker 1: in a way organizations and will self destruct. But the
Speaker 1: problem is there's a lot of casualties and people that
Speaker 1: suffer the consequence. So we will be better off avoiding
Speaker 1: it by minimizing, you know, the dark side tendencies that
Speaker 1: people have when they are leadership roles. What are your
Speaker 1: own narcism levels? Look, you know, I always say I
Speaker 1: grew I grew up in Argentina, where you know, we
Speaker 1: are probably the most deluded nation underwater. So I think
Speaker 1: more than Americans. Yes, I think so. I think so.
Speaker 1: I mean certainly because if anything, America still has the
Speaker 1: performance and the competence to back it up. Mostly right,
Speaker 1: you could argue, Okay, it's not as great as it
Speaker 1: was before, but at least it's still in most economic
Speaker 1: output measures, the world superpower Argentina was the superpower or
Speaker 1: a superpower in eighteen seventy. It's been declining ever since,
Speaker 1: but people's egos are still intact and as high as ever. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I often describe myself as a recovering Argentine,
Speaker 1: and by that I mean that in the last twenty years,
Speaker 1: which is the time I spent away, I've been trying
Speaker 1: to work on decreasing my confidence and narcissism and becoming
Speaker 1: less entitled, more humble, more modest. And you know, it's
Speaker 1: painful in the beginning, but it's very useful in the end. Now,
Speaker 1: are you going to run the risk of pissing off
Speaker 1: your fellow Argentinians when they listen to this podcast as
Speaker 1: well as like you make a similar argument in your
Speaker 1: tech talk text. Yeah, but you know, I think when
Speaker 1: you are really that sure that this is not about
Speaker 1: you because you're great. Something similar happened with my book
Speaker 1: for a few years. I proposed to HBr to turn
Speaker 1: my article into a book, and they said, look, we
Speaker 1: can't publish this because seventy percent of our listeners are
Speaker 1: male executives and you are essentially insulting them. And I said,
Speaker 1: don't worry. Most of them won't realize that it's about
Speaker 1: them because that requires self awareness. Same with the Argentines.
Speaker 1: You know, they laugh at my jokes because they're like, yeah,
Speaker 1: other people in my country are deluded, but not me.
Speaker 1: It's so like the better than average abais. Yeah, that
Speaker 1: saves you. That maya saves you book sales. So I
Speaker 1: just want to talk about this third point a second
Speaker 1: about narcissism and how you're kind of waking this to
Speaker 1: males because we found, you know, I think that one
Speaker 1: potential criticism of your work is like you're letting women
Speaker 1: off the hook too easily. Like women on average, we
Speaker 1: found in our research score higher than men on vulnerable narcissism,
Speaker 1: a different kind of narcissism, which is more associated with
Speaker 1: self preoccupation and anxiety and self insecurity, and there's still
Speaker 1: an entitlement level there, which is what makes it part
Speaker 1: of the narcissm complex. So couldn't one make the argument that,
Speaker 1: like there's just that neither men or women are better
Speaker 1: or worse, but they kind of it comes out their
Speaker 1: narcissism comes out in different ways. Yeah, I think that
Speaker 1: is a valid point, And you know, I think so
Speaker 1: I use kind of more broader terms and kind of
Speaker 1: maybe more exaggeratic terms to distinguish between sort of neurotic
Speaker 1: narcissism and psychotic narcissism. Right, so the first one is
Speaker 1: more insecure. I don't know if you watched the British
Speaker 1: version of The Offen. I haven't seen the American one,
Speaker 1: but in the British one, it's very clear that the
Speaker 1: main character, played by Ricky Jervis is an insecure narcissist. Yes,
Speaker 1: regards is very much the female type, which you know,
Speaker 1: he thinks he's great, but constantly requires validation constantly, Yes,
Speaker 1: and it's very tiring, but actually not just for being
Speaker 1: an effective leader, but in general you can generally coach
Speaker 1: that profile or that type of narcissism easier than the
Speaker 1: psychotic or deluded, you know, the kind of megalomaniac narcisism.
Speaker 1: So I think even there there is you know, small
Speaker 1: advantage to being a woman, even though of course we're
Speaker 1: still talking about small effects sizes ages, yea averages, right,
Speaker 1: But I think if you look at the whole picture
Speaker 1: and you look at, yes, on average, where women differ
Speaker 1: from men is because women tend to be less overconfident,
Speaker 1: even to the point of being more insecure, more kind
Speaker 1: and caring, more altruistic, et cetera, and men are the opposite. Historically,
Speaker 1: that has been seen as a male advantage, but I
Speaker 1: think these are cyclical things. If we spend three or
Speaker 1: four decades selecting for an over masculine profile of a leader,
Speaker 1: there's going to be a need for the opposite. So
Speaker 1: I'm not arguing that forever, you know, we need to
Speaker 1: have a more femine leadership style. But I think that
Speaker 1: many of the problems that we've experienced with our leadership
Speaker 1: in the last two or three decades are because of
Speaker 1: this over emphasis or over indexing of people who are
Speaker 1: overly abrasive, over confident, rectlyss you know, and hypermasculine. So
Speaker 1: a balance would be nice. Organizations that have managed to
Speaker 1: have a more mixed or cognitive diverse configuration of leader
Speaker 1: profile tended to do better as well. I really like
Speaker 1: that point trying to get all my potential Christians out there,
Speaker 1: because that's what I do on this econoity podcast. So
Speaker 1: let me think of another one. So, you know, some
Speaker 1: people may feel like may really object to you, you
Speaker 1: equating hypermasculinity as like a bad thing, you know, like
Speaker 1: you know, there's this big controversial over this Chillette add
Speaker 1: that kind of painted some normal masculine traits is necessarily toxic.
Speaker 1: But couldn't one make the case that's not fair to
Speaker 1: you're not being fair to men, you know, Like, you know,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of masculine qualities like just healthy assertiveness
Speaker 1: and perseverance and things that are just a you know,
Speaker 1: caretake and you know, like to manage as many people's
Speaker 1: possitive that could be actually very beneficial things. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think you're right, you know, And just because I focus
Speaker 1: on some of the negative effects doesn't mean that I'm
Speaker 1: not aware of the positive effects clearly. Also, at least
Speaker 1: the way I see it is, I see this as
Speaker 1: an issue of, you know, a continuum. There is a
Speaker 1: range of or in femininity and a range of or
Speaker 1: in masculinity. As you know, many biological males are more
Speaker 1: feminine than some biological females and so forth. So, if anything,
Speaker 1: my argument is that for too long we've assumed that
Speaker 1: masculine characteristics of leadership or the masculine type is better
Speaker 1: than it actually is, and focused so much on that
Speaker 1: or selecting for that, that we ended up in many
Speaker 1: cases with leaders who overindulged and they displayed you know,
Speaker 1: antisocial behaviors bullying, harassment, and other tendencies that are so
Speaker 1: common that you know, it's almost the elephant in the room.
Speaker 1: I mean, now they transcend it because there are so
Speaker 1: many famous cases. That is not to say that you
Speaker 1: have maybe healthy features or traits that you know we've
Speaker 1: associated with masculinity and that are an effect of masculinity,
Speaker 1: such as being competitive, you know, being as you said,
Speaker 1: confident to a healthy degree. So if anything, you know,
Speaker 1: there is the bright and the dark side of both
Speaker 1: of feminine masculinity. My point is that we haven't emphasized
Speaker 1: enough the bright side of being a feminine leader, and
Speaker 1: actually we haven't been aware enough of the dark side
Speaker 1: of you know, masculinity. Yeah, that point, that's point's very
Speaker 1: well taken. Okay, So what should we do to improve
Speaker 1: the quality of our leaders and increase women leadership because
Speaker 1: that's important too, right, I mean, you don't want to
Speaker 1: just make the argument we just need to make more
Speaker 1: men be like women. We also need more women, right exactly. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And so you know, this is a great question. So
Speaker 1: again I have three recommendations, which you know are part
Speaker 1: of the and how to fix it part of the book.
Speaker 1: The first is to follow the science and look for
Speaker 1: the qualities that actually make people better leaders, especially when
Speaker 1: they don't usually make people leaders. So things like self awareness, curiosity,
Speaker 1: people's skills, emotional intelligence, and even technical expertise, humility, coach ability.
Speaker 1: Sometimes there is a theoretical understanding that these are desirable
Speaker 1: competencies and leadership traits, but there's still not much evidence
Speaker 1: that we actually select leaders on these trades. So basically
Speaker 1: focus on the right traits. That's the first recommendation. The
Speaker 1: second one is to distrust our instincts. Even in today's
Speaker 1: age where there's so much discussion on being evidence based,
Speaker 1: data driven, big data now AI, etc. And you know,
Speaker 1: much of HR has been rebranded as people analytics, the
Speaker 1: dominant currency for making even these high stake decisions of
Speaker 1: selecting people to the highest ranks of power and leadership
Speaker 1: is intuition. Like this person who I just interviewed, Oh,
Speaker 1: they'll fit right in. You know. The same companies that
Speaker 1: are spending and largely wasting money on unconscious bias training
Speaker 1: would see that they hire on culture fit, you know,
Speaker 1: and that just replicates by is that are often hard
Speaker 1: to find because companies don't have tradition or a habit
Speaker 1: of actually measuring the performance of the leaders. So I
Speaker 1: like you during the interview, and then I'm in charge
Speaker 1: of your performance evaluation and I say you are great,
Speaker 1: and then hey, I was such a good you know,
Speaker 1: assessor or evaluator of leadership potential. So second one is
Speaker 1: distrust our instincts. I mean, that's like a really really
Speaker 1: big hurdle for making progress in HR in general. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's pause because I feel like you're about to move
Speaker 1: on to number three. Let's take a pause. Am I right,
Speaker 1: You're about to move on number three? Yes? I was okay, cool,
Speaker 1: I could tell. So okay, so let's pause again because
Speaker 1: this is you're saying so many juicy things. So you
Speaker 1: just like just quickly said, like yes, because we're wasting
Speaker 1: so much money on unconscious training. Well that's not obvious.
Speaker 1: Let's unpack that more because there are still a lot
Speaker 1: of companies that believe in unconscious bias training. Can you
Speaker 1: explain a little more unpacked from the science on why
Speaker 1: you think money would be better spent elsewhere? So I
Speaker 1: think you know, first, of course, there is variability in
Speaker 1: the type of training that is offered, right, So, on
Speaker 1: the point of how effective this intervention is in interventions are,
Speaker 1: my main objection is that a lot of these interventions
Speaker 1: focus on making the unconscious conscious. And my argument here
Speaker 1: is that most biases are not even unconscious, they are
Speaker 1: actually conscious, and that a lot of the problematic biases
Speaker 1: are conscious. In fact, you can create more problems that
Speaker 1: you're solving by making people aware of the fact that
Speaker 1: I don't know they're biased against women, Blacks, Hispanics, old people,
Speaker 1: or unattractive people. If I'm still relying on my intuition
Speaker 1: during an interview and all I'm thinking is I should
Speaker 1: not think that the person in front of me is Hispanic,
Speaker 1: Latino or female, I will only think about that and
Speaker 1: I will have trouble focusing on everything else. And by
Speaker 1: the way, there's no evidence that even eliminating that bias
Speaker 1: will make me an objective assessor of that person's potential
Speaker 1: compared to science based assessments or some data driven interventions.
Speaker 1: Having said that, you know, my main objection is not
Speaker 1: that the training might not work, but that the same
Speaker 1: companies are, on the one hand, spending money on those interventions,
Speaker 1: and then on the other hand saying we hire on
Speaker 1: culture fit. You know, they're almost incompatible because if you
Speaker 1: are going to select people who are just like everybody
Speaker 1: else in your company, that's a very conscious bias that
Speaker 1: drives your talent identification efforts. I see, I see. So
Speaker 1: focus more on what conscious values and decision the trees
Speaker 1: that we're making a selection criteria. Then, yeah, then you
Speaker 1: seem to have less faith that we can so easily,
Speaker 1: in like a two hour or a full day unconscious
Speaker 1: bias session, convert the unconscious into consciousness. Yeah, that's for sure. Right,
Speaker 1: So certainly, you know, come here, I'll show you some
Speaker 1: slides or the nineteen seventies or nineteen eighties research on
Speaker 1: you know, I eights, et cetera, which, as you know,
Speaker 1: are still there's some interesting studies there and it's still
Speaker 1: a lot of discussion as to whether how effective they
Speaker 1: are and also what happens once you find out what
Speaker 1: the iit. I tells you, Right, So I did the
Speaker 1: Harvard Implicit Associations Test of sexism, and your sexist well, interestingly, yeah,
Speaker 1: in favor of women, you know, compared to men, so
Speaker 1: which I sort of knew, so it might that makes
Speaker 1: sense concerning this book you've written. Yeah, you know, and
Speaker 1: so for example, what happens next, right, So that's the
Speaker 1: important thing. How do I address that bias once it
Speaker 1: is conscious? But anyway, I think if you're doing that
Speaker 1: training and then at the same time you're saying here,
Speaker 1: we basically want people who are just like everyone else,
Speaker 1: you're not going to create an inclusive culture that is
Speaker 1: accepting of people who look different. By the way, also,
Speaker 1: if companies are really thinking that they're going to address
Speaker 1: their diversity and inclusion issues by appointing minority person as
Speaker 1: chief diversity officer and that's it, it's not very serious.
Speaker 1: Well that's a lot of companies are doing that these
Speaker 1: days exactly. And you know, and I think the intention
Speaker 1: might be fine, but much like the leaning argument or
Speaker 1: like quotas, they often backfire because those who are in charge,
Speaker 1: you know, the elite, usually men, assume that these measures
Speaker 1: are breaking or kind of reducing a meritocratic order there
Speaker 1: is in place in their view, because you know, nobody
Speaker 1: is challenging the fact that there is no meritocracy at
Speaker 1: the moment. Really really interesting point. Okay, so let's move
Speaker 1: on to your third one. Is that Okay, the third one,
Speaker 1: which kind of addresses the second part of the question,
Speaker 1: which is, you know, not just how do we get
Speaker 1: better leaders in place, but also how do we get
Speaker 1: more women in leadership roles? And what I actually argue
Speaker 1: is that the solution is the same for achieving both things.
Speaker 1: So the third one is, don't make it easier for
Speaker 1: competent women to become leaders, make it harder for incompetent
Speaker 1: men to become leaders. They're occupying a lot of the
Speaker 1: jobs and roles that could go to competent women or
Speaker 1: competent people in general. But at this stage, you know,
Speaker 1: the main issue is that incompetent men are overrepresented in
Speaker 1: leadership roles. So in a way, what I argue, or
Speaker 1: the main implication for diversity gender diversity policies or interventions
Speaker 1: is that the best gender diversity intervention is to focus
Speaker 1: on talent rather than gender. If you really do assess
Speaker 1: talent and potential well and select leaders on the basis
Speaker 1: of their talent and potential, you would not just end
Speaker 1: up with more women in leadership. You would probably end
Speaker 1: up with slightly more women than men in leadership roles,
Speaker 1: which would actually lead to us having to think about
Speaker 1: positive discrimination policies to help men get to leadership roles,
Speaker 1: so if anything, it would be a reverse instance from
Speaker 1: what you have right now. And that argument sometimes upsets
Speaker 1: even feminists who think, oh, what you're saying is that
Speaker 1: you know, it's all about the business case and ROI,
Speaker 1: and it's not important to promote social justice or fairness,
Speaker 1: not at all. You know, I adhere to the social
Speaker 1: justice and social fairness cause, but I'm also saying that
Speaker 1: most corporations are not in it to improve social justice
Speaker 1: and social fairness, and their role in the world is
Speaker 1: not to reduce inequalities. So if you're planning to persuade them,
Speaker 1: using that argument is not going to work, and it
Speaker 1: might backfire because they think, oh, we're you doing it
Speaker 1: because it's an altruistic reason that means there can be
Speaker 1: a business case and it's not meritocratic. My argument is, look,
Speaker 1: here is the business case, and that would also, by
Speaker 1: the way, take care of the social justice issue. But
Speaker 1: we are simply doing this to actually make you more effective. Okay,
Speaker 1: so you're not necessarily a fan of quotas then, or
Speaker 1: a quality of outcome like forcing that we had that
Speaker 1: fifty hiring fifty women fifty percent men you're more in
Speaker 1: line with the like things will work itself out in
Speaker 1: a fair and equitable manner if we focus on talent
Speaker 1: and reduce our biases. Is that more along the lines
Speaker 1: of what you're saying. Yeah, absolutely, And I think you know,
Speaker 1: use the right words, because I'm not a fan of quotas,
Speaker 1: but at the same time, you know, I'm not against them.
Speaker 1: So if there's no other way and we can persuade
Speaker 1: organizations to be more meritocratic, then fine, let's use quotas.
Speaker 1: But I believe there is a better way, which is
Speaker 1: to select on talent. And if you do selection in
Speaker 1: a gender blind way and focus on talent, the issue
Speaker 1: takes care of itself. So let's talk about talent for
Speaker 1: a second, because unfortunately I wasn't able to get you
Speaker 1: on the Psychology podcast to discuss your prior book, The
Speaker 1: Talent Delusion, So let's try to integrate that a little
Speaker 1: bit into this discussion. So I see a connection there
Speaker 1: between that book and in your current book and this.
Speaker 1: You know, the major argument of your prior book was
Speaker 1: that we need to really rely more on objective data
Speaker 1: and not on our intuition, which can lead us a
Speaker 1: right and you've made a similar argument today about how
Speaker 1: we need to override our intuitions in a lot of cases,
Speaker 1: or distrust our instincts as you put it. So it
Speaker 1: does seem like this book is a bit of a continuation.
Speaker 1: You're prior one. We say, that's right, Yeah, that's correct.
Speaker 1: And in fact, you could even see there is a
Speaker 1: trilogy because before the Time trilogy. Yeah, I mean obviously
Speaker 1: not the same as the Star Wars or other, which
Speaker 1: is probably not even a trilogy, but you know, yeaheah,
Speaker 1: it's not bad to the future. But there's still three
Speaker 1: and that you know, the first one is a book
Speaker 1: on how confidence in general is overrated. We overrated in
Speaker 1: ourselves and in others. That was the generic book. Then
Speaker 1: the talent delusion is we are not very good at
Speaker 1: evaluating talent in the context of jobs, works and most
Speaker 1: organizations played by ear and people don't get helpful feedback
Speaker 1: to understand what they're good at, what they are where
Speaker 1: they can be more valuable, et cetera. And this one
Speaker 1: is combining both things but taking the discussion to the
Speaker 1: realm of leadership and adding, you know, injecting the gender
Speaker 1: variable so you know, you're absolutely right and in the
Speaker 1: talent delusion. I think the main point us that to
Speaker 1: some degree, you know, everybody, if they are put in
Speaker 1: a place where their attitudes, personality, interests and abilities are
Speaker 1: in the right place, they are going to be a
Speaker 1: high performer. Okay, but at present that doesn't happen very
Speaker 1: often because we basically use the wrong criteria and the
Speaker 1: wrong tools to actually work out what people are good at.
Speaker 1: That was the talent division. Yeah, I could see the
Speaker 1: connections between all three, but moving zooming out even further
Speaker 1: from all three, what would you say is like a
Speaker 1: key thread of all your your entire life work individual
Speaker 1: differences leaders in the workplace. I don't know, what would
Speaker 1: you see? That's an interesting question, you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: what would you think is the main one? Is this
Speaker 1: is a chicky one? Well, I just said at the
Speaker 1: most broadest level, I see you being very interested in
Speaker 1: individual differences personality, Yeah, in the workplace. But it could
Speaker 1: also be now like you've extended this to group differences
Speaker 1: as well differences. But I think you're right, you know,
Speaker 1: because even when I talk about group differences, it's, you know,
Speaker 1: just the aggriate level of analysis. It's a consequence of
Speaker 1: individual differences. That are, you know, also fluster around there.
Speaker 1: So you know, ultimately, like, even though I'm very focused
Speaker 1: on what happens in the workplace and business environments and
Speaker 1: people's kind of careers, You're right, I think my main
Speaker 1: interest is ultimately using science and applying that science to
Speaker 1: understanding or decoding the most individual level of analysis of
Speaker 1: what people are like, right, and so yeah, in the
Speaker 1: tradition of individual differences or differential psychology, is trying to
Speaker 1: understand what people's typical or default tendencies are, which doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that they're not going to change some time, you know,
Speaker 1: from one situation to another. And you know what I mean, right, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: So I'm wondering what has been the reaction to your book.
Speaker 1: I mean, I hope it just hasn't been purely stereotypical
Speaker 1: in the sense that the women applaud you and love
Speaker 1: you and want it'll be like, oh, Tomas, I want
Speaker 1: to hug you, you know, and all the men like
Speaker 1: hate your guts, you know, like for like selling us out. Like,
Speaker 1: I hope it hasn't simply been that stereotypical. Please tell
Speaker 1: me that it's not just been the reaction. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: I think You're right, it hasn't simply been that, and
Speaker 1: it's not the only reaction, but let's say that maybe
Speaker 1: thirty percent of it is that, which, yeah, there's some
Speaker 1: of that, right, Yeah, there's some of that for sure.
Speaker 1: I think the title is somewhat of a double edged sword,
Speaker 1: you know, or mixed blessing. It definitely gets people to
Speaker 1: pay attention to it, but it also stops people in
Speaker 1: some instances from actually reading the book and they have
Speaker 1: views on it. You know. The reaction suggest that they
Speaker 1: actually they haven't actually read the book. Yeah, but they
Speaker 1: have opinions about the title. That can be you know,
Speaker 1: the title can be polarizing in a way. So I'm
Speaker 1: going to talk about the remaining third, the one consider
Speaker 1: the most promising, most rational, and at least more rewarding reaction,
Speaker 1: which is always when people reframe certain misconceptions and maybe
Speaker 1: they thought, oh, okay, you know, so what you're arguing
Speaker 1: is that we are, for example, focusing less on the
Speaker 1: qualities that make people more effective as leaders and the
Speaker 1: things that actually we all assume. Because if you ask
Speaker 1: even educated and liberal and you know, professional experience people,
Speaker 1: what is the number one competency or ingredient of leadershy potential,
Speaker 1: they will the most common answer will be confidence, you know,
Speaker 1: just helping them reframe that is important. And then I
Speaker 1: think the one that I have, you know, been probably
Speaker 1: happiest about is people who work in the diversity and
Speaker 1: inclusion space and are maybe from whatever reason, role, job,
Speaker 1: or part of their occupations, trying to promote gender equality.
Speaker 1: They've often said, oh, you know, this is a different argument,
Speaker 1: and I can see now how some of the things
Speaker 1: that we've taken for granted might not just not help,
Speaker 1: but actually backfire, you know. So I think the timeliness,
Speaker 1: if anything, is that we have entered, I think a
Speaker 1: phase in the discussions of diversity, gender, diversity and equality
Speaker 1: where the conversation is a little bit more mature, more rational,
Speaker 1: more evidence based, and where organizations are moving from pretending
Speaker 1: that they care to actually caring. Yeah, and again, you know,
Speaker 1: I see a lot of people really agree with that,
Speaker 1: and then I see some people saying, you know, there's
Speaker 1: just so much piling on men these days, you know,
Speaker 1: like it can lead one to kind of think, what
Speaker 1: was there anything good about men? You know, Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think it's certainly, you know, there has never been a
Speaker 1: worse time in history to be a man. But at
Speaker 1: the same time, it is still much better to be
Speaker 1: born as a man than as a woman anywhere in
Speaker 1: the world, you know, including Scandinavia by the way. So
Speaker 1: I'm not saying the solution to the past historical injustices
Speaker 1: would be to reverse it and make the world you know,
Speaker 1: overly challenging towards men and too easy for women. But
Speaker 1: even if that happened, you could argue that it's not
Speaker 1: the most immoral scenario, given how hearted has been for
Speaker 1: the past few hundred years, at least for women, how
Speaker 1: easy it has been unfairly easy for men. So I'm
Speaker 1: not advocating for that, But if that happened, then I
Speaker 1: can't necessarily sympathize and say, oh, poor men, you know. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I do, hear saying. You know, I think the important
Speaker 1: thing is just keep up the open conversation and mutual
Speaker 1: understanding across both sexes and both genders. And yeah, I
Speaker 1: think you've really contributed an important addition to this ongoing
Speaker 1: to cultural war. But it's also a reckoning, a male reckoning.
Speaker 1: You know, men are starting to be accountable for a
Speaker 1: lot of their bad behavior, and you know, like it's undeniable.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of bad behavior among men. There's bad
Speaker 1: behavior among women too, right, correct. And I think you know,
Speaker 1: the interesting kind of more geeky and theoretical or even
Speaker 1: philosophical team that underpins this or some of these issues,
Speaker 1: which I know you've researched and written about a lot,
Speaker 1: is that kind of intersection or tension between cultural evolution
Speaker 1: and biological evolution. You know, how the degree to win
Speaker 1: and watch one emerges because of the other, and to
Speaker 1: what degree they are intention and one tries to undermine
Speaker 1: the other. So I think that's very interesting, certainly, that
Speaker 1: the fact that, yeah, you know, there's a thing that
Speaker 1: always has been and will continue to be. But then
Speaker 1: at the same time, you have huge cultural differences today
Speaker 1: between different places that show that culture can do a
Speaker 1: lot to erode, suppress, or counteract some of these biological factors.
Speaker 1: It can, And that seems to be the focus of
Speaker 1: your book, right is what can we do as a
Speaker 1: culture to have a more equitable workplace that also just
Speaker 1: has more actually competent people running the ship exactly exactly.
Speaker 1: And I think ultimately men have always and by men
Speaker 1: I mean mankind, right, So men and women in mankind
Speaker 1: has found ways to truscend their own biology and nature.
Speaker 1: I am creating tools and machines and technology that actually
Speaker 1: advanced the speeches as well. And that's you know, at
Speaker 1: the core of much of the conversation around technology and
Speaker 1: AI today as well. Even if we don't become androids
Speaker 1: anytime soon, hopefully not, well, I don't know. Maybe it
Speaker 1: would say it would actually help us in a lot
Speaker 1: of ways, but we don't need to get into that quest.
Speaker 1: At least, you should reassure your audience that you are
Speaker 1: a human and I am a human, and also remind
Speaker 1: me that neither of us is an incompetent man. That's
Speaker 1: important to state. Oh, that's very kind of you to
Speaker 1: think I'm a competent man. Well, I try my best,
Speaker 1: and I try to be better every day, you know,
Speaker 1: and I think that's the best we can do, right
Speaker 1: For sure, Trying is half of the battle. Okay, what's
Speaker 1: the other half of the battle, Well, it's succeeding at it, right.
Speaker 1: But I think a lot of the issues, and this
Speaker 1: is a serious topic that fascinates me. If you look
Speaker 1: at another literature, which is the coaching and leadership development literature,
Speaker 1: which shows very clearly, some interventions are more effective than others. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's always going to be the case. And the main
Speaker 1: determinant or driver of whether an intervention is effective is
Speaker 1: not the coach is not. The methodology is the co
Speaker 1: g right. The old joke in psychology, which is how
Speaker 1: many psychologists it takes to change the livebut one so
Speaker 1: long as the live bulb really wants to change, you know.
Speaker 1: Can people change, Yes, but mostly they don't because they
Speaker 1: don't try, you know, or they don't get the right feedback,
Speaker 1: or they're happy where they are. So I always say
Speaker 1: the paradox in the world of coaching is that it
Speaker 1: works with those who needed the least, because there are
Speaker 1: the people who were already curious, self critical, and eager
Speaker 1: to change. And conversely, those who have none of these
Speaker 1: attributes are a uncoachable and those who needed the most
Speaker 1: and they're the ones at the top. Yes, and we
Speaker 1: won't give specific examples, but yeah, it can be the
Speaker 1: very very top. Yeah, yeah, yeah, or you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think it's fair to say that this is quite
Speaker 1: a common feature in many many, if not most heads
Speaker 1: of states. Yeah, you know, seventy percent of the world
Speaker 1: is run by people who have no shortage of confidence
Speaker 1: and charisma, but are not very humble, not very curious,
Speaker 1: not very coachable. And maybe things are better than they were,
Speaker 1: but I would argue that they could also be much better.
Speaker 1: And the countries that are run well and where people
Speaker 1: are happiest and thriving and improving themselves tend to be
Speaker 1: run by more competent and humble people. I really like that.
Speaker 1: So I want to ask you a final question here,
Speaker 1: unless there's anything else you want to talk about. But
Speaker 1: you know, there's an age old question, and I'm going
Speaker 1: to ask it to you. Do you nice guys finish last?
Speaker 1: This is you know, sometimes I think it's the correct answer, sir.
Speaker 1: It doesn't have to be the case. It's a real yeah.
Speaker 1: My book would focus on the fact that they do right,
Speaker 1: because even though I make the case for more women
Speaker 1: in leadership, I also make the case for nicer guys
Speaker 1: in leadership. I think we need more nice guys to
Speaker 1: be in leadership roles. And right now, when you often
Speaker 1: show that you are a nice guy, you are you know,
Speaker 1: overlooked or ignored for leadership roles. Yeah, nice manner discriminated
Speaker 1: against as well, exactly, absolutely, And so I make that
Speaker 1: point in the book, so for the purposes of our conversation,
Speaker 1: I would say yes, but it doesn't have to be
Speaker 1: the case. Oh no, it should be the other way around,
Speaker 1: especially because as a leader, you are responsible for the
Speaker 1: well being, the performance, the success, and the fate of
Speaker 1: your team, your followers, your subordinates. So they're going to
Speaker 1: benefit much more if you are a nice guy than
Speaker 1: if you're a nasty dot dot dot. Yeah. So I
Speaker 1: wish more people. I wish a lot of people listening
Speaker 1: to this podcast episode who are in leadership positions or
Speaker 1: can choose leaders, and hope they choose more wisely based
Speaker 1: on your work. Absolutely, and I think you know the
Speaker 1: men who have expressed positive comments and feedback on the book,
Speaker 1: and they are also more likely to mentor and support
Speaker 1: the female case often say look, I mean I am
Speaker 1: myself disadvantage or handicapped at work because I display some
Speaker 1: of these feminine characteristics. So absolutely, yeah, awesome. Well, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for chatting with you, Thomas, and I
Speaker 1: wish you all the best of this important research program.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Scott, thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: Psychology podcast. I hope you enjoyed this episode. If you'd
Speaker 1: like to react in some way to something you heard,
Speaker 1: I encourage you to join in the discussion at the
Speaker 1: Psychology podcast dot com. That's the Psychology podcast dot com.
Speaker 1: Also please add a reading and review of the Psychology
Speaker 1: Podcast on iTunes. Thanks for being such a great supporter
Speaker 1: of the podcast, and tune in next time. From more
Speaker 1: on the mind, brain, behavior, and creativity m from Bush
Speaker 1: some f