The conversation around women in leadership is not new, yet we find the topic continues to be at the forefront of leadership discussions. Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic recently did a blog post regarding The Under-Representation of Women in Leadership which highlighted organizations inability to distinguish competence from confidence. I tend to agree with Dr. Chamorro-Premuzic around the debate for women to “lean in” and adopt the dysfunctional characteristics we find to be prevalent in our male leaders. This concept only perpetuates the issue of choosing arrogance over humility in our leadership; right or wrong.

Hogan has defined leadership as the ability to build and maintain a high-performing team that beats the competition. To build a high-performing team, the leader must be someone the team is willing to follow. This allows us to assess performance with respect to the overall team performance. Taking this view on leadership and the recently released paper The Case for Investing in Women by the Anita Borg Institute (ABI), we find there are some key advantages to women in leadership roles.

According to The Case for Investing in Women, having a priority on hiring women manifests higher organizational and financial performance. In particular, the following outcomes have been noted (see article for full details):

• Fortune 500 companies with at least three women directors saw:
  • Return on invested capital increased by at least 66%
  • Return on sales increase by at least 42%
  • Average return on equity increase by at least 53%

These and other data points in the report provide compelling information concerning the advantages of women in leadership. Interestingly, as of 2010, women held 47 percent of the total U.S. labors force (United States Department of Labor), however, when it comes to women in CEO positions the numbers are dismal. Women represent 4.6% of the Fortune 500 CEO positions (Catalyst 2014).

If the research strongly suggests the need for women in leadership positions, then where are they? Lately, we have received questions around the lack of upward movement of women into executive levels. Organizations with a targeted approach and programs created to provide development opportunities for women to move into Executive ranks are finding their efforts moving slowly. Leadership programs, along with mentorships, job previews, and peer support groups to guide and educate women have been established within many companies and, yet, organizations find themselves with little movement among their female population. Organizations are starting to ask themselves, why?

To tackle this topic, my colleagues, Morgan Meister and Jennifer Lowe will explore how we got to this point, what organizations are doing right and wrong, and how to invest in future women leaders.

There are three popular explanations for the clear under-representation of women in management and entrepreneurship, namely: (1) they are not capable; (2) they are not interested; (3) they are both interested and capable but unable to break the glass-ceiling: an invisible career barrier, based on prejudiced stereotypes, that prevents women from accessing the ranks of power. But what if all of us are missing the bigger picture? We asked Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic.

What do you think is the cause for the under-representation of women in management?

In my view, the main reason for the uneven management sex ratio is our inability to discern between confidence and competence. That is, because people commonly misinterpret displays of confidence as a sign of competence, we are fooled into believing that men are better leaders than women.

Do men actually have an advantage over women when it comes to leadership?

The only advantage that men have over women is the fact that manifestations of hubris — often masked as charisma or charm — are commonly mistaken for leadership potential, and that these occur much more frequently in men than in women.

Why are we drawn to narcissistic individuals for leaders?

Leaderless groups have a natural tendency to elect self-centered, overconfident and narcissistic individuals as leaders. Freud argued that the psychological process of leadership occurs because a group of people — the followers — have replaced their own narcissistic tendencies with those of 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.

What do you think about the “lean in” debate pushing women to be more like their male peers?

It strikes me as 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 these dysfunctional leadership traits. Yes, these are the people we often choose as our leaders — but should they be?

What are women doing right when it comes to management and entrepreneurship?

In a comprehensive review of studies, Alice Eagly and colleagues showed that female managers are more likely to elicit respect and pride from their followers, communicate their vision effectively, empower and mentor subordinates, and approach problem-solving in a more flexible and creative way, as well as fairly reward direct reports. In contrast, male managers are statistically less likely to bond or connect with their subordinates, and they are relatively more inept at rewarding them for their actual performance.

Do women have an unseen advantage by being more humble?

Arrogance and overconfidence are inversely related to leadership talent. Whether 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 men. For example, women outperform men on emotional intelligence, which is a strong driver of modest behaviors.

So, then, what’s women’s biggest barrier to achieving equal representation in leadership positions?

One of the biggest problems 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 pathological system that rewards men for their incompetence while punishing women for their competence, to everybody’s detriment.

What can we do to stop the unnatural selection of male leaders and entrepreneurs?

First, we can debunk the myth of leadership and entrepreneurship as masculine. Psychological research has shown that even when we know stereotypes are inaccurate, they still affect our decisions. Uprooting the stereotype that men are naturally better suited for leadership and entrepreneurship would encourage competent women and discourage incompetent men. Second, we can bet on competence rather than confidence – for investors to bet on actual rather than self-perceived talent.

After a rigorous selection process designed to gauge student’s leadership potential that began last October, Odgers Berndston, a leading global executive search firm, has identified 11 Canadian students to spend a day shadowing some of the country’s top senior executives in the company’s launch of CEO X 1 Day. Students in their third and fourth year of university study were selected after a three stage application process of academic record review, Hogan leadership and personality assessment results, and phone interviews.

Spotlight: Katerina Fragos, one of the 11 students chosen to participate in the program, will spend a day shadowing Manon Brouillette, the president and COO of Videotron. Even the selection process was rewarding for Fragos:

“Even though the final round was a competition, the Odgers Berndston team treated it more like a training workshop,” says Fragos. “I knew that even if I wasn’t selected, I would leave with a new understanding of my strengths and weaknesses as a leader.”

Pairing different generations together in a work setting has a twofold purpose, Odgers Bernsten stated in a recent press release: students will have the opportunity to ask, learn, and understand the complexities of leading a top company while participating CEOs will gain valuable insights into what drives the next generation of leaders.

See the press release with a partial list of winners. 

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 . . .”

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.

For me, nothing is better than a good Bill Murray movie – especially the underappreciated 1981 classic Stripes. In case you aren’t familiar, here is the plot synopsis on Rotten Tomatoes.

One of my favorite characters in the film is Sgt. Hulka, the hard-assed drill sergeant that makes Murray’s boot camp experience a living hell until he is unwittingly injured on the artillery range.

Hulka’s particular brand of abuse is funny and relatively mild – limited to pushups and latrine duty – but according to a Jan. 6 story on NPR, the non-fictional U.S. Army has a real and decidedly unfunny problem with its leadership.

The story details the results of the military branch’s investigation into last year’s rash of suicides and suicide attempts among soldiers stationed in Iraq. According to the report, many of the 30 who attempted or completed suicide last year had one thing in common: toxic leaders.

The corporate world is no stranger to toxic leaders; most people have worked for one at some point in their careers. Under the strain of a combat deployment, however, toxic leaders actions can push already fragile soldiers over the edge.

"Oftentimes platoon leaders will take turns seeing who can smoke this guy the worst. Seeing who can dream up the worst torture, seeing who can dream up the worst duties, seeing who can make this guy's life the most miserable," says [researcher Dave] Matusda. "When you're ridden mercilessly, there's just no letup, a lot of folks begin to fold."

Thankfully, the Army is taking aggressive steps to fix their leadership problem, instituting anonymous 360 reviews for more than 1,000 commanders by next year as well as kicking out several officers. Check out the full story over at NPR.

Did you know that trust in one’s superior predicts the entire range of desirable organizational outcomes: productivity, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment? Good leaders can build trust by embodying four essential qualities: integrity, judgment, competence, and vision.

Personality predicts leadership style, which in turn, directly impacts employee engagement. Companies whose employees are engaged show higher returns on assets, are more profitable, and yield nearly twice the value to their shareholders compared to companies characterized by low employee engagement. Disengagement, on the other hand, results in an estimated $300 billion in lost productivity in the U.S. each year!

Because leadership can make or break an organization, it’s imperative we find out all we can about what it means to be a good leader. So, let us share with you What We Know About Leadership and discover the answer to organizational success.

Sometimes effective leadership is as hard to come by as buried treasure. But don’t worry; we’re here to give you a map wherein X marks the spot for leadership mastery.

We define leadership as the ability to build an effective team, so a good leader must be someone others are willing to follow. There are four essential characteristics people look for in a leader:

• Integrity
• Judgment
• Competence
• Vision

Bad leaders, on the other hand, are ineffective and ultimately will fail because they are unable to build or maintain a functioning team. Some shared qualities of bad leaders include being arrogant, manipulative, emotionally volatile, and micromanaging.

So how can you ensure that your leadership style belongs in the first category and not the latter? Rodney Warrenfeltz, managing partner at Hogan, has built a four domain competency model for organizational success. The fourth domain, leadership, provides sample competencies such as providing direction, support, and standards for accomplishment and communicating a compelling vision.

Check out our whitepaper, What We Know About Leadership for more about the leadership domain and unearth organizational effectiveness.

Do Creative People Make Good Leaders?

The relationship between employees and their bosses, as well as that between followers and leaders, is one of the most studied and discussed topics in business and psychology. Yet, it remains one of the least understood. Hogan conducted a survey of 1,000 respondents examining the relationship between employees, bosses, and personality.

Rate of Bad Managers
Research shows us that more than roughly 60% of people currently in a leadership position will fail, usually due to flaws in interpersonal behavior that prohibit them from forming and maintaining a high-functioning team. Our survey results support this research – the average respondent would be willing to work for fewer than half of their former bosses (around 45%).

Respondents were most likely to describe bad bosses as:

As job level increases, there are no significant differences in terms of how people describe bad bosses.

Great bosses, on the other hand, were most likely to be described as:

As job level increases, people are more likely to describe good bosses as good at business strategy, and less likely to describe good bosses as sociable.

Why can’t we be friends?

• Respondents were most likely to say it is important for them to like their boss.
• Likewise, respondents were most likely to say it is important for their boss to like them.
• Respondents were evenly split when asked if they work harder for bosses they consider friends.

Lonely at the top: As job level increases, people are less likely to say it is important that their bosses like them or that it is important they like their bosses.