It seems more trouble is brewing in the military’s upper ranks. In the same month the Army released a report detailing its problem with toxic leaders and their role in the rash of soldier suicides over the past year, the Washington Post is reporting misconduct among the nation’s top brass. From allegations drinking on duty in the Air Force to sexual misconduct and even assault in the Army and Navy, no branch was exempt.

What is the source of this widespread corruption? From the article:

Martin L. Cook, a professor of military ethics at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., said the recent eruption of misconduct is “frankly a puzzle to everybody.” One factor, he added, may be that as officers climb higher in the ranks they become insulated and fewer people are willing to challenge or question them.

Although this pattern of derailment is new, or more likely just newly reported, in the military, it is all too familiar to politics and the corporate world.

Judgment is a multi-part process in which an individual (a) processes the available information, (b) makes a decision, (c) receives feedback, and (d) adjusts their decision-making based on that feedback.

Business and political leaders are faced daily with heavy decisions. As they rise up the ranks, their circle of peers and advisors grows smaller and feedback scarce and more biased, putting them at greater risk of bad judgment.

In the political arena, Mitt Romney was so insulated from realistic feedback in 2012 that he was reportedly shocked as Obama won a decisive victory. In the private sector, leaders who made and then doubled down on bad decisions launched the country into a financial crisis from which we’re still recovering.

Whether in the private sector, politics, or the military, the net effect of those poor decisions is the same:

Cook said, military leaders recognize “they’ve got a major trust problem with the American people . . .”

An article published in Psychology of Women Quarterly provides another clue to why women are so grossly outnumbered by men in the upper ranks of corporate America: they don’t brag enough.

Montana State University psychologists Jessi Smith and Meghan Huntoon recruited 78 women from a university to write a scholarship application essay promoting either their own or another person’s accomplishments. The researchers found that when participants were asked to violate the “modesty norm” by boasting about their own accomplishments, they displayed decreased motivation and performance.

As Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Hogan’s director of research and innovation, pointed out in his Harvard Business Review article, “Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders?”, “because we commonly misinterpret displays of confidence as a sign of competence, we are fooled into believing that men are better leaders than women."

Check it out: Smith and Huntoon’s article, or Chamorro-Premuzic’s post.

In recent preparation for some out-of-town company, I panicked at the state of my house. The carpets had not been vacuumed, the bathtubs not scrubbed, and the mirrors needed glass cleaner, desperately.

A friend happened by as I was starting the feverish effort to get my house clean. When I explained the source of my stress, she asked how I could possibly think my house needed hours of attention. I pointed out the dust on the baseboard and dog hair in the entryway. She shrugged. Soon, we realized the obvious variable in this disagreement: the eye of the perceiver. Although the house didn’t meet my standards for how I wanted to present it to others, my friend considered it clean and tidy.

This interaction reminded me of similar conversations I have with my peers and clients. The observations of others may vary based on the lens through which they view the world. The direct communicator appears honest to her colleagues who communicate in the same manner, yet abrasive to her softer, more diplomatic associates. The micromanaging boss appears rigid in the eyes of his flexible and relaxed subordinates. However, to those with the same adoration for details and control, this behavior is appreciated and supported.

The eye of the perceiver and even our own viewpoint is insightful, but is still based on one individual with unique views and biases. It is the collective views of our friends, peers, and coworkers that solidify our reputation and, ultimately, what matters for success. Ignoring such information or considering only our own viewpoint may lead down a path of ineffectiveness, derailment, or dissatisfaction. Valid assessments provide a reliable platform for one to receive such aggregated feedback; however, for those who don’t have the opportunity to receive this information, there is certainly still value in the words of a trusted friend.

In recent preparation for some out-of-town company, I panicked at the state of my house. The carpets had not been vacuumed, the bathtubs not scrubbed, and the mirrors needed glass cleaner, desperately.

A friend happened by as I was starting the feverish effort to get my house clean. When I explained the source of my stress, she asked how I could possibly think my house needed hours of attention. I pointed out the dust on the baseboard and dog hair in the entryway. She shrugged. Soon, we realized the obvious variable in this disagreement: the eye of the perceiver. Although the house didn’t meet my standards for how I wanted to present it to others, my friend considered it clean and tidy.

This interaction reminded me of similar conversations I have with my peers and clients. The observations of others may vary based on the lens through which they view the world. The direct communicator appears honest to her colleagues who communicate in the same manner, yet abrasive to her softer, more diplomatic associates. The micromanaging boss appears rigid in the eyes of his flexible and relaxed subordinates. However, to those with the same adoration for details and control, this behavior is appreciated and supported.

The eye of the perceiver and even our own viewpoint is insightful, but is still based on one individual with unique views and biases. It is the collective views of our friends, peers, and coworkers that solidify our reputation and, ultimately, what matters for success. Ignoring such information or considering only our own viewpoint may lead down a path of ineffectiveness, derailment, or dissatisfaction. Valid assessments provide a reliable platform for one to receive such aggregated feedback; however, for those who don’t have the opportunity to receive this information, there is certainly still value in the words of a trusted friend.

An article published in Psychology of Women Quarterly provides another clue to why women are so grossly outnumbered by men in the upper ranks of corporate America: they don’t brag enough.

Montana State University psychologists Jessi Smith and Meghan Huntoon recruited 78 women from a university to write a scholarship application essay promoting either their own or another person’s accomplishments. The researchers found that when participants were asked to violate the “modesty norm” by boasting about their own accomplishments, they displayed decreased motivation and performance.

As Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Hogan’s director of research and innovation, pointed out in his Harvard Business Review article, “Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders?”, “because we commonly misinterpret displays of confidence as a sign of competence, we are fooled into believing that men are better leaders than women.”

Check it out: Smith and Huntoon’s article, or Chamorro-Premuzic’s post.

With a college background in literature, I tend to relate ideas and concepts to narrative forms deriving anywhere from the classics to contemporary rom-coms (I don’t discriminate). So, when I see narcissism trending in the news, I inevitably search my story database for an exaggerated narcissistic character for comparison. And who should pop into my head other than that dastardly fink, Daniel Cleaver from Bridget Jones’s Diary, a contemporary version of Jane Austen’s antagonist, the rakish Mr. Wickham.

It’s rather obvious that what the poor sod lacks in self-awareness, he makes up for in smiles and charm. In fact, he charms his charismatic self right into the heart of his employee, the love-struck Bridget Jones. Though Jones, who makes some missteps and judgment follies of her own, eventually wises up to his masquerade, Cleaver never does. He’s so good at impression management and making others buy into his winning personality, that he dupes even himself. In a recent Harvard Review blog, Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic explains that “such delusions of grandeur allow narcissists to be more effective manipulators than individuals who are politically savvy but inhibited by their inability to distort reality or morality in their favor. It is always easier to fool others when you have already fooled yourself.”

Fortunately, “one of the unique characteristics of narcissistic individuals,” says Chamorro-Premuzic, “is their inability to prolong their seductive powers for too long…Their initial flamboyance, charm and confidence soon morphs into deluded self-admiration, defensive arrogance, and moral disengagement.” Well, that’s spot on for Cleaver. His charismatic and charming illusion fades along with his control of the situation, and his true colors – deceit, questionable morals, and unmitigated arrogance – begin to peek through his carefully manicured exterior.

While narcissism can help individuals get ahead in their career and isn’t necessarily a bad characteristic to embody, Chamorro-Premuzic says that “the critical ingredients for success are competence rather than confidence, altruism rather than egotism, and integrity rather than charisma.” In the end, I almost feel sorry for Daniel Cleaver. While he may bounce back quickly due to his narcissistic never-at-fault attitude, without proper self-awareness, he’ll just keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again.

With a college background in literature, I tend to relate ideas and concepts to narrative forms deriving anywhere from the classics to contemporary rom-coms (I don’t discriminate). So, when I see narcissism trending in the news, I inevitably search my story database for an exaggerated narcissistic character for comparison. And who should pop into my head other than that dastardly fink, Daniel Cleaver from Bridget Jones’s Diary, a contemporary version of Jane Austen’s antagonist, the rakish Mr. Wickham.

It’s rather obvious that what the poor sod lacks in self-awareness, he makes up for in smiles and charm. In fact, he charms his charismatic self right into the heart of his employee, the love-struck Bridget Jones. Though Jones, who makes some missteps and judgment follies of her own, eventually wises up to his masquerade, Cleaver never does. He’s so good at impression management and making others buy into his winning personality, that he dupes even himself. In a recent Harvard Review blog, Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic explains that “such delusions of grandeur allow narcissists to be more effective manipulators than individuals who are politically savvy but inhibited by their inability to distort reality or morality in their favor. It is always easier to fool others when you have already fooled yourself.”

Fortunately, “one of the unique characteristics of narcissistic individuals,” says Chamorro-Premuzic, “is their inability to prolong their seductive powers for too long…Their initial flamboyance, charm and confidence soon morphs into deluded self-admiration, defensive arrogance, and moral disengagement.” Well, that’s spot on for Cleaver. His charismatic and charming illusion fades along with his control of the situation, and his true colors – deceit, questionable morals, and unmitigated arrogance – begin to peek through his carefully manicured exterior.

While narcissism can help individuals get ahead in their career and isn’t necessarily a bad characteristic to embody, Chamorro-Premuzic says that “the critical ingredients for success are competence rather than confidence, altruism rather than egotism, and integrity rather than charisma.” In the end, I almost feel sorry for Daniel Cleaver. While he may bounce back quickly due to his narcissistic never-at-fault attitude, without proper self-awareness, he’ll just keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again.

There’s a cool post from David Reese, who leads people and culture at Medallia, a Silicon Valley software startup that measures and provides data on customer experience, in which he explains the need for an honest answer to the common interview question “what is your greatest weakness?” 

Reese points out that a search of career center websites reveals the advice students are getting – to focus on lesser skills or spin their weaknesses into strengths.

This is terrible advice. It indicates to me that they’re not willing to stand up and say what’s not working — the opposite of what a startup needs. One of the biggest dangers for a young company is that a roomful of smart people who aren’t being honest could easily be steering their rocket ship into the ground.

When I interviewed at Hogan, I had a snappy answer ready to deflect this infamous question ("I have a problem properly channeling my incredible physical strength."). I was so pleased with myself that I was disappointed when the question never came.

“You never asked me about my greatest weakness,” I said on the way out the door.

“We already know,” my future boss replied.

Although this news was initially disconcerting, as I reflected on it post interview, it was rather comforting. I had already taken the assessments, they had my results, they knew my stress points, and they still wanted to have lunch and talk about my future. That seems a better, more honest place to start an interview.

There’s a cool post from David Reese, who leads people and culture at Medallia, a Silicon Valley software startup that measures and provides data on customer experience, in which he explains the need for an honest answer to the common interview question “what is your greatest weakness?” 

Reese points out that a search of career center websites reveals the advice students are getting – to focus on lesser skills or spin their weaknesses into strengths.

This is terrible advice. It indicates to me that they’re not willing to stand up and say what’s not working — the opposite of what a startup needs. One of the biggest dangers for a young company is that a roomful of smart people who aren’t being honest could easily be steering their rocket ship into the ground.

When I interviewed at Hogan, I had a snappy answer ready to deflect this infamous question (“I have a problem properly channeling my incredible physical strength.”). I was so pleased with myself that I was disappointed when the question never came.

“You never asked me about my greatest weakness,” I said on the way out the door.

“We already know,” my future boss replied.

Although this news was initially disconcerting, as I reflected on it post interview, it was rather comforting. I had already taken the assessments, they had my results, they knew my stress points, and they still wanted to have lunch and talk about my future. That seems a better, more honest place to start an interview.

In the first installment of our Drinks with Hogan video series, Global Alliances Consultant Rebecca Miller discusses identity, reputation, and the importance of strategic self-awareness to an individual’s ability to lead.