Hot Best Seller

Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders?: (And How to Fix It)

Availability: Ready to download

Look around your office. Turn on the TV. Incompetent leadership is everywhere, and there's no denying that most of these leaders are men. In this timely and provocative book, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic asks two powerful questions: Why is it so easy for incompetent men to become leaders? And why is it so hard for competent people—especially competent women—to advance? Marshaling Look around your office. Turn on the TV. Incompetent leadership is everywhere, and there's no denying that most of these leaders are men. In this timely and provocative book, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic asks two powerful questions: Why is it so easy for incompetent men to become leaders? And why is it so hard for competent people—especially competent women—to advance? Marshaling decades of rigorous research, Chamorro-Premuzic points out that although men make up a majority of leaders, they underperform when compared with female leaders. In fact, most organizations equate leadership potential with a handful of destructive personality traits, like overconfidence and narcissism. In other words, these traits may help someone get selected for a leadership role, but they backfire once the person has the job. When competent women—and men who don't fit the stereotype—are unfairly overlooked, we all suffer the consequences. The result is a deeply flawed system that rewards arrogance rather than humility, and loudness rather than wisdom. There is a better way. With clarity and verve, Chamorro-Premuzic shows us what it really takes to lead and how new systems and processes can help us put the right people in charge.


Compare

Look around your office. Turn on the TV. Incompetent leadership is everywhere, and there's no denying that most of these leaders are men. In this timely and provocative book, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic asks two powerful questions: Why is it so easy for incompetent men to become leaders? And why is it so hard for competent people—especially competent women—to advance? Marshaling Look around your office. Turn on the TV. Incompetent leadership is everywhere, and there's no denying that most of these leaders are men. In this timely and provocative book, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic asks two powerful questions: Why is it so easy for incompetent men to become leaders? And why is it so hard for competent people—especially competent women—to advance? Marshaling decades of rigorous research, Chamorro-Premuzic points out that although men make up a majority of leaders, they underperform when compared with female leaders. In fact, most organizations equate leadership potential with a handful of destructive personality traits, like overconfidence and narcissism. In other words, these traits may help someone get selected for a leadership role, but they backfire once the person has the job. When competent women—and men who don't fit the stereotype—are unfairly overlooked, we all suffer the consequences. The result is a deeply flawed system that rewards arrogance rather than humility, and loudness rather than wisdom. There is a better way. With clarity and verve, Chamorro-Premuzic shows us what it really takes to lead and how new systems and processes can help us put the right people in charge.

30 review for Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders?: (And How to Fix It)

  1. 4 out of 5

    Toyin A

    Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic has asked a pertinent question and provided insight on how to fix the issue of incompetent people becoming leaders. Although it focuses on why incompetent men become leaders, he identifies behaviours, traits and characteristics incompetent leaders have that many organisations can spot. These behaviours are seemingly masculine and Tomas investigates why. He also discusses how to pioneer competent leadership and encourage more females to step up - not by encouraging them to be Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic has asked a pertinent question and provided insight on how to fix the issue of incompetent people becoming leaders. Although it focuses on why incompetent men become leaders, he identifies behaviours, traits and characteristics incompetent leaders have that many organisations can spot. These behaviours are seemingly masculine and Tomas investigates why. He also discusses how to pioneer competent leadership and encourage more females to step up - not by encouraging them to be like men, but showing them how to be the competent leader that organisations need. Using the example of Auder Capital, Tomas describes how 2 women who were appalled by their colleagues approach to risk taking launched the company. Instead of blindly copying the status quo, they contributed in their own unique way. But does assertiveness equate to leadership competence? This is a question I kept asking while reading the book. There are many indications that less assertive people are generally relied on to maintain the status quo and not necessarily relied on for pro activeness. After detailing how organisations can crack the formula for effective leadership at the most detailed level, he teaches how to identify better leaders.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Eilonwy

    The title of this book grabbed my attention because I work with a pretty incompetent leader: a “manager” my co-workers and I often do our best to work around, rather than with, because he is at best useless and often actively harmful. In addition, he takes pride in being above knowing how to do anything on the office computer system; that’s for underlings. So if a problem comes up, he “solves” it by essentially running around the office shrieking with his hands in the air until someone else who The title of this book grabbed my attention because I work with a pretty incompetent leader: a “manager” my co-workers and I often do our best to work around, rather than with, because he is at best useless and often actively harmful. In addition, he takes pride in being above knowing how to do anything on the office computer system; that’s for underlings. So if a problem comes up, he “solves” it by essentially running around the office shrieking with his hands in the air until someone else who actually knows what’s going on and what to do steps in and deals with it. Then he credits himself with having gotten the job done. According to this book, about 75% of employees see their managers and bosses as being about as useful as this guy. The gendered title stems from the fact that most leaders, whether elected or promoted to their positions, are still male. There’s a certain comforting thrill in reading the opening chapters of this book, and realizing that one’s own incompetent manager isn’t an isolated case. But it’s also very depressing, because the author is pretty certain that if you leave your current job in hopes of finding a better manager, you’ll probably just find yourself working under another Pointy Haired Boss. Even more depressing: Most male leaders seem to get selected for their positions based on their belief in and loud proclamation of their own perception of their great abilities and competence. They aren’t necessarily required to demonstrate that they can work with people, or that they understand or care about the goals of the organization, or to put the achievements of the organization above their own individual pride and ambition. The author’s suggested “fix” is that since women are actually expected to demonstrate competence before they are elevated to leadership positions, men should be demanded to meet the same requirements as women, rather than just demonstrating confidence. This was an interesting premise, but it didn’t leave me with much hope for changes in my, or any other, workplace in the short run. The most depressing sentence in this book to me was this: “A series of studies found that men’s careers tend to suffer when the men are friendly, empathetic, and agreeable.” So male a******s will continue to be rewarded at work for the foreseeable future, and nice, decent guys will continue to come in last right along with women. The most sexist part of this book was actually about women and a long section asserting that women have higher EQ -- emotional intelligence -- than men. This may be true, but I would argue that this is more because women are commanded to behave emotionally towards other people than because it’s necessarily innate. The book points out that women are required to be seen as “confident, competent, and caring,” [emphasis added by me] and I know I’ve wasted a lot of energy in my life pretending to be caring when I really couldn’t have cared less. I am certain that if men were expected to be caring, they’d darned well learn to at least fake emotional intelligence as well. Instead they are punished for having it, so there’s an equally good chance that men who have high EQ are pretending they don’t. Another assertion in this book that is definitely Junk Science and which really made me start questioning everything the author says was the assertion that testosterone affects people’s spatial intelligence and that men have better spatial abilities due to their higher testosterone levels. It goes on to say, “Women with high testosterone levels have better spatial abilities than men with low testosterone levels.” But -- men with “low” T levels have over 200 nanograms of T per deciliter of blood, and generally >240 ng/dl (normal for men is 240 to 950 ng/dl). Women with “high” T levels have less than 100 ng/dl, and generally <60 ng/dl! (Normal for women is 8 to 60 ng/dl.) There’s just no comparison when male “low” T is still 4 times female “high” T, so IMO something else is going on with the spatial intelligence. (The book also says that studies show that a single shot of T improves both men’s and women’s map-reading abilities on the spot, which I also question as to the actual cause and effect. If anyone reading this review knows anything deeper about these kinds of studies, please fill me in in the comments!) I wish the author had thought to investigate further, or had an interest in sports or transgender issues so he would know this kind of basic biology. So I’m not sure reading this book gave me much insight other than “Men are rewarded for being arrogant, women are held to ridiculous standards of ‘competence,’ and somehow we need to manage to hold men to the same standards as women, but no one is really sure how to get there.” To be fair, there are some useful charts in the book showing the difference between the kind of leadership you get from people who just want to be leaders for their own ambition, and people who actually want to run a team and a successful organization. Hopefully some actual business leaders will look at those and start to make some changes in their view of what makes a good manager.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Val

    All the male leaders who really should read this book probably won’t. But I now have more sophisticated ways of silently judging them.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Sophia

    I feel kinda bad rating so poorly a book promoting women as leaders, but the content was generally poor, and occasionally the author promoted outright detrimental ideas, so one star it is. The target audience for this book is HR and people responsible for hiring; it's certainly of no use to a woman trying to gain a leadership position. The main message of the book is that there's no good system in place for identifying leaders, and instead the proxies that are currently popular are based on unre I feel kinda bad rating so poorly a book promoting women as leaders, but the content was generally poor, and occasionally the author promoted outright detrimental ideas, so one star it is. The target audience for this book is HR and people responsible for hiring; it's certainly of no use to a woman trying to gain a leadership position. The main message of the book is that there's no good system in place for identifying leaders, and instead the proxies that are currently popular are based on unrelated personality traits that rarely outlast the duration of an interview (confidence, charisma), and happen less in women, thus they are hired less. Instead, qualities more often found in women are good for leadership, and more often found in women leaders. I'd like to say that the main fix proposed by the author is to hire more women, but the author is not entirely consistent with even that simple message. In fact, there's little consistency throughout the book. Just don't bother reading it. I have a lot of nitpicking with the book though, so if anyone is interested, here goes... The good: - There's this finding that while there are fewer women in leadership roles, they tend to be higher quality than their male counterparts. A reasonable explanation for this is that women have to be genuinely next level candidates in order to beat more mediocre men when the employers have implicit gender biases. The author promotes the idea that instead of trying to lower the bar for women to help them get hired, we should figure out ways to raise the bar to the same level for men (since in fact overall leadership has been found lacking). I think this is the most interesting message of the book, although honestly I don't know how feasible it is in practice. Annoyingly, the author forgets this point when talking about Clinton v Trump; saying that Clinton was described as cold, ambitious and robotic, which would never happen to a man. Great, but instead of saying that, wouldn't it be better to say that we should start considering those unacceptable traits for a male politician? Although the “ambitious” one is patently absurd for whatever gender. - The author correctly points out that It's not correct to say that women lack confidence, rather we've been conditioned to not display confidence. I see it all the time in STEM science; women are very reluctant to say things like "I did this...", preferring the team "we", even though they literally did that thing entirely on their own. When I asked a friend why she did that, she said "it just doesn't feel right to say things like that"; this even after her (male) supervisor suggested using "I". - I also think the author is correct in his main point that the proxies used during interviews are not effective predictors of good leadership. I think if the general population had a healthy respect for humbleness, someone like Trump wouldn't have been elected. In general, humbleness is good in leaders because it allows others to bring forth criticisms and suggestions for improvement. But an alternative could just be to foster an environment of feedback; I'm sure athletes and musicians can be very arrogant, but they have no problem having coaches shadow their every move. The bad: - The biggest “bad” that made me drop my rating from 2 to 1: the author repeatedly promoted data mining and AI of both work and private digital activity to determine potential good or bad leaders. At some point, even suggesting it could be useful to filter out narcissists by how many selfies they post on social media. There is so much wrong with this stance, and a lot of accessible books explaining it (e.g. Weapons of Math Destruction), even if common sense doesn't get you there. I mean, how could you even have the gall to tell someone they were rejected from a position because they posted too many selfies? You'd get sued in a heartbeat! - In supporting the above-mentioned idea, the author writes: "Although some employees may object to having their data mined by algorithms, this makes sense for 2 reasons: first employees email traffic and other work related data are legitimate sources of information that signal how employees are performing. After all, work is what employees should be doing. Second, even if imperfect they are more likely to be more accurate and less biased when analyzed by a computer". a) "Some people mind" is a very vanilla way of characterizing an invasion of privacy; how paranoid will that make employees, knowing their email count is going to affect their odds of a promotion? Instead of the more traditional metrics like quality of work? b) The moment you introduce a proxy to measure something for decisions, that proxy becomes the target and you lose sight of the thing you were trying to filter out c) Kinda need to back up an assertion like email traffic being a legitimate source of information; I have no reason to believe that d) "Work" that can be easily quantified is most often already delegated to computers; the reason humans are employed at all is for everything that could not be algorithmically set up automatically. How do you expect any algorithm to correctly quantify the work a human does? Does the author have any idea what people actually do? e) Maybe less obvious, but there is ample evidence out there to indicate that human biases permeate in algorithms, and no one is there to fix them or even notice them - Author promotes the idea that overconfidence is always bad, and the only reason we evolved it was because it makes us feel good. First off, "feeling good" is not an end of evolutionary selection, it is a means. Second, there are actual advantages to being overconfident, in that it allows individuals to overcome doubts, and at least TRY. This point was completely overlooked by the author; day-to-day overconfidence, like any fiction, will be detrimental because it's not real. But when it comes to venturing out, taking a chance, it's the only way that's going to happen. A venture capitalist might not be too happy investing money if they knew for a fact a startup founder was overconfident, but so long as enough overconfident people try, enough will succeed. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - On the flip side, the author argues that when competent people lack confidence, they will prepare more; ignoring the alternative of "not trying". This is the story of me with driving; I'm probably pretty average at it, or would be if I had bothered to drive for the past 8 years since I had a license, but I have 0 confidence in my ability to do so, and just opted for public transportation. So ultimately, I think it's still fair to say women could do with a little more of men's overconfidence. This gender imbalance in confidence hits early; a math tutor I recently met confessed she preferred teaching boys to girls, because they would actually ask questions and tried even if they knew they could fail. - The chapters on psychopathy and narcissism were abysmal. They often read like horoscopes ("they're quick to blame others for their own mistakes"), and never really stressed that these are scales on which everyone in the world falls somewhere on, and not a binary, clinical thing. So he could flip between talking about literal psychopaths, and then cite research about psychopathic traits in the general population correlating with something else, which I only discovered by looking up the references. By not presenting the fact that these are scales, it obfuscates the very real possibility that there may be an "optimal dose" of narcissism or psychopathy that actually does make a good leader. - Author attributed the success of psychopaths to our "inability to resist their charm", which doesn't square at all with how women lack success, since they definitely can be characterized as "charming". - Author cites idea that when people are anxious, charismatic leaders are more likely to be chosen; it's a datapoint of 1, but I think Biden winning over Trump is a strong indication against that - Chapter on charisma was especially bad, and it boils down to shifting goalposts when it comes to defining charisma itself; for the first 3/4 he provides no definition and literally calls it "undefinable", just puts it in contrast to unassumingness and humility. But then he indicates its entirely in the eyes of the beholder, and thus ends up representing white men by default. Then he provides a bullet point list provided by researchers on what they think charisma SHOULD be. Interestingly, this list was part of a study used to show that women, contrary to popular belief, are in fact MORE charismatic. I'd say it rather helps to say women are more charismatic when you define charisma with blatantly feminine statements like "uses emotional communication effectively", "nurturing employees potential". I mean, come on. - The author misrepresented some of his citations. At some point the author asserts the universalness of the assumption that charisma is important to leadership, back when he’s still arguing it’s an overhyped trait in men, undefinable. But the reference he cites provides a very clear and positive definition of charisma as “broadly defined leadership dimension that reflects the ability to inspire, to motivate, and to expect high performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core beliefs.” Which is inherently positive and hard to imagine anyone disagreeing with. There was nothing stopping him from providing this neat definition early on, even just to explain that everyone can have very different definitions of charisma, but lets work with this one… - Author does not address the value of diversity; that there are (typically) male or female traits that are better for some situations than others, and the whole advantage of having both genders in leadership is you'll get a bit of both. He mentions a financial investment company founded by women in Iceland that chose a more "feminine" approach, and in fact were way more conservative in their investments. In 2008, they were the only company in the country to survive the financial crash unscathed. Great; but it was the "male" overconfident investments that drove forth centuries of innovation and risk taking in the first place. We need both mindsets in this world, they are not interchangeable or one better than the other. - Along the same lines as above, author presents the case of Kalanick, ex-CEO of Uber, who had to be kicked out after fostering a toxic work environment and a sexual harassment scandal. Very true, but ignoring the fact that Kalanick was one of the founders of Uber; the company might not have existed without him! His attitude was certainly not sustainable long term, but hard to believe nothing in his personality was responsible for getting the company started. - Big glaring discrepancy in the book: after several chapters about problems and possible solutions, author admits that interventions in leadership have mostly been failures. While it's nice to believe that he only promoted ideas proven to work, none of his earlier citations included successful intervention studies (in which a change in hiring or training program was implemented, and effects evaluated). Hard to take him seriously after that - the author recommends introducing psychometric tests to the hiring process. This is stupid, because that's exactly what universities tried to do with SATs and intelligence, and instead deepened the divide between those that could hire a tutor and those that couldn't. - When it came time to indicate what aspects really do correlate with good leadership, the answers are uselessly fluffy, vague, over-general and thus unhelpful. - Somehow thinks that MIT students from the Sloan business school should have less gender bias than the average manager.

  5. 5 out of 5

    L A

    Thanks to Harvard Business Review Press and Netgalley for the advance review copy. Once I read the title of this book, I knew I had to read it. Yes, it’s a little clickbait-y but it’s certain to grab attention and get people talking. In my current role my team and I work to develop leadership skills in our organisation, and we’re often left scratching our heads as to what these should be, how we can develop them and what the barriers to leadership are, particularly for women. This book is quite Thanks to Harvard Business Review Press and Netgalley for the advance review copy. Once I read the title of this book, I knew I had to read it. Yes, it’s a little clickbait-y but it’s certain to grab attention and get people talking. In my current role my team and I work to develop leadership skills in our organisation, and we’re often left scratching our heads as to what these should be, how we can develop them and what the barriers to leadership are, particularly for women. This book is quite unusual as it throws out the “fake it till you make it” advice that is often given to aspiring female leaders and eschews the type of “lean in” approach suggested by Sheryl Sanberg. It is peppered with current examples used to illustrate the points made and covers a wide range of topics current in leadership thinking such as self-awareness, resilience and emotional intelligence. It also touches upon some less discussed themes such as narcissism and psychopathy and argues that for no good reason these traits have been valued for leaders to possess. The book is clearly well researched and draws from a wealth of evidence and studies. Particularly interesting was the research evidence around how there is really very little difference between the genders and the exploration around misunderstandings about confidence vs competence (“Competence is how good you are at something. Confidence is how good you think you are at something”) and how what is traditionally valued in business doesn't actually translate into tangible results and in many cases leads to team dysfunction and poor outcomes. The author argues that for women there is a Catch 22 where “traditional” leadership characteristics such as assertiveness are seen as masculine and unappealing for women to possess yet when women fail to demonstrate these traits they are seen and not having leadership potential. The title will put some people off and anger others, it’s controversial. The book doesn’t really touch much on what the solutions might be, and it makes some bold claims e.g. “the best and most accurate measures of psychological capital are psychometric tests” but it certainly provides a lot of food for thought. If you take a look, you’ll see there is a lot of common sense here. I would particularly recommend this book for those involved in recruitment, leadership development and aspiring leaders both male and female.

  6. 4 out of 5

    Sam

    I enjoyed the first part of this book that outlined how many male leaders exhibit problematic qualities that detract from their leadership abilities. I’ve experienced this all too many times so it really resonated. However, I felt the second part of the book lacked any viable solution and all the suggestions seemed pretty off- the author even seems to suggest that more data mined from our online platforms could solve the problem. He even suggests that if one listens to aggressive music on Spotif I enjoyed the first part of this book that outlined how many male leaders exhibit problematic qualities that detract from their leadership abilities. I’ve experienced this all too many times so it really resonated. However, I felt the second part of the book lacked any viable solution and all the suggestions seemed pretty off- the author even seems to suggest that more data mined from our online platforms could solve the problem. He even suggests that if one listens to aggressive music on Spotify this could mean they might be an aggressive leader. I would love a better follow up to this book that suggests tangible workplace reforms - going beyond just coaching.

  7. 4 out of 5

    Diana Dávalos

    Even tough the title may be controversial, this book really talks about the real personality traits a good / competent leader should have independently of gender, ethnicity, etc.

  8. 5 out of 5

    Jill

    Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders? I was apprehensive going into this book, thinking the title was just to get people to pick it up, plus it was written by a man which made me even more skeptical. But I was pleasantly surprised; Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic did a great job of explaining leadership, what makes a good leader, how people become leaders, etc. This book has a lot of research behind it and lots of studies to defend the positions given. I liked that it started with a discussion Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders? I was apprehensive going into this book, thinking the title was just to get people to pick it up, plus it was written by a man which made me even more skeptical. But I was pleasantly surprised; Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic did a great job of explaining leadership, what makes a good leader, how people become leaders, etc. This book has a lot of research behind it and lots of studies to defend the positions given. I liked that it started with a discussion of confidence vs. competence and how confidence is rewarded when competence should be what is rewarded. (I found it funny that a study in 2018, showed that of surveyed people 79% of men and 68% of women “considered themselves better –than-average drivers.”) It goes on to discusses many more topics, including: narcissism and psychopathy, EQ, charisma, intuition, ambition, coaching, and nature vs. nurture (“If we want an animal to climb a tree, we are better off finding a squirrel than training a fish.”). I appreciated that the end goal was not just “hire more women,” but instead “hire the right leaders.” A short, quick read, but very informative and powerful. Highly recommended to anyone who is a leader, wants to be a leader, knows a leader or anyone really.

  9. 5 out of 5

    Dax

    Succinct and felt like I was at church. Kept wanting to yell out words of praise such as, "Preach! Amen! Testify! Speak truth to power!" Succinct and felt like I was at church. Kept wanting to yell out words of praise such as, "Preach! Amen! Testify! Speak truth to power!"

  10. 5 out of 5

    Nina

    An easy read as far as management litteraturen goes, and some good points to be taken. The best is by far the title, love leaving the book laying around on my desk at work.

  11. 4 out of 5

    DW

    Key quote: "[An] incorrect assumption--[that suggests a group lacking representation in leadership must somehow lack leadership potential]--is based on the illusions that current systems are meritocratic." The author points out how many high functioning, Fortune 500 leaders he personally coached did rely upon nothing more than 'gut feeling' to evaluate senior leadership candidates. And gut feeling gives all the room you need for your biases to crawl in and stay there. And most of the biases are t Key quote: "[An] incorrect assumption--[that suggests a group lacking representation in leadership must somehow lack leadership potential]--is based on the illusions that current systems are meritocratic." The author points out how many high functioning, Fortune 500 leaders he personally coached did rely upon nothing more than 'gut feeling' to evaluate senior leadership candidates. And gut feeling gives all the room you need for your biases to crawl in and stay there. And most of the biases are those of the dominant system, which is sexist to the surprise of no one. Dispelling this illusion effectively, with specific examples that I can remember easily, is what I hoped to get out of this book and it delivered. No author walks the perfect line and some chapters kinda chapped my brain, but in general I'd recommend the book. It provides good ammunition for arguments to levy against people who believe that business systems are fair or bias free. Things that I enjoyed? -Steve Jobs was a terrible leader. He led a company with radically good ideas that survived in spite of his terrible leadership qualities because the ideas were just that good and because he was very good at taking credit for every good idea that passed his way. We was still a terrible leader and a better leader with those ideas could have done even more. -Taking apart the Google IQ debacle from years ago. -Pointing out leaders miss their potential (and deliver fewer results) with fewer EQ type skills, but unfortunately quiet leaders with high EQ tend to get less press and therefore are invisible. -Being skilled in a field and being a good leader who works in that field are very different. People tend to be promoted upwards for excelling in a non-leadership quality (good accountant, good engineer, good librarian) which is relevant but becomes less so the higher up you go. Lacking easy measures of leadership talent (which is usually due to laziness), we use generic traits that are de facto 'leadership traits': Extroverted/confident/pushy/risk-taking. These traits do not actually predict measurable positive results for an organization. if they happen, it is rarely a strong correlation. -A great quote from a different author, Irwin Bernstein, brings all that home: "The plural of anecdotes is not data." So many people point to some random anecdote (like the success of Apple and it being led by a certain man with certain personality flaws) as some kind of scientific proof that these flaws make men good leaders. *** Takeaways for me. I'm a white guy so there is every reason to believe I can fail upwards in spite of mediocrity compared to someone working harder than me, like every other white guy before me. Very easily. Statistically, this has already happened to me. There will be fewer people checking my record or scrutinizing me. I need to practice getting out of the way of women colleagues, putting myself in positions were I can be scrutinized or to self-scrutinize. This was the reason I knew I needed to read this book. It me, and even if I try really hard for it not to be, it still me. Scrutinize HR systems with no checks or balances. Whenever there is no formal rule about something, make one. It is going to fall back to 'gut instinct' in the absence of hard rules and that instinct is usually something sexist no matter who you are.

  12. 5 out of 5

    Ayca

    Interesting and easy to read. Explains the title of the book well. Has so many examples of experiments. However; doesn’t recommend easy and effective solutions. The recommended solutions are good and hopefully we’ll get there button now sounds like utopia and the book doesn’t have the necessary realistic explanation of how to get there.

  13. 4 out of 5

    James La Vela

    Read this book.

  14. 5 out of 5

    Fr. Peter Mottola

    Takes 180 pages to say very little. In essence: there are negative consequences for choosing leaders based on impressions rather than objective criteria. Author has a serious concern about the under-representation of women in leadership roles, but does not once mention factors outside the workplace such as time taken off of work to raise children—not even raising this to say it lies outside the scope of the book, let alone discuss policies about family leave or other relevant topics. This had bee Takes 180 pages to say very little. In essence: there are negative consequences for choosing leaders based on impressions rather than objective criteria. Author has a serious concern about the under-representation of women in leadership roles, but does not once mention factors outside the workplace such as time taken off of work to raise children—not even raising this to say it lies outside the scope of the book, let alone discuss policies about family leave or other relevant topics. This had been recommended to me from a friend from a large Archdiocese, and certainly many a priest could be the poster-child for incompetent leadership, but most small dioceses have such slim pickings that almost every priest will become a pastor, regardless of our awareness of good traits for leaders. The "how to fix it" subtitle of the book is rather pessimistic about the possibility of leaders getting better at leading, and proposes the solution of choosing different candidates from among a pool of possible promotions. It thus does not apply to my particular interest, but even speaking more broadly, I would not recommend the book.

  15. 5 out of 5

    Zachery Tyson

    Disappointing. It starts off well but unfortunately turns into one of those vapid leadership books about halfway through. I feel like this was one of those books that gestated from a well-received HBR article or TED talk and was padded with enough generic content to make it justifiable for publication.

  16. 4 out of 5

    Deir Zahrani

    It was good halfway, but toward the end, I lose interest and just skimmed through it. The title was a clickbait guy, the content wasn't shaming any gender at all. The author was shaming anyone in any gender who were so full of themselves and get recognized by it. It was good halfway, but toward the end, I lose interest and just skimmed through it. The title was a clickbait guy, the content wasn't shaming any gender at all. The author was shaming anyone in any gender who were so full of themselves and get recognized by it.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Edwin Dalorzo

    Thought-provoking and powerful message This book pretends to make us realize how flawed are our current protocols, standards, and natural instincts used to choose leaders every day, and what are the consequences of our negligent selections. The author argues in favor of putting more scientific thinking in our selection process to avoid choosing the worst type of leaders, and present interesting arguments in favor of choosing more women leaders, who are less prone than men to certain common leader Thought-provoking and powerful message This book pretends to make us realize how flawed are our current protocols, standards, and natural instincts used to choose leaders every day, and what are the consequences of our negligent selections. The author argues in favor of putting more scientific thinking in our selection process to avoid choosing the worst type of leaders, and present interesting arguments in favor of choosing more women leaders, who are less prone than men to certain common leadership vices and also possess higher levels of natural EQ. The book appears to be really well-founded and the author provides dozens of references to interesting scientific studies, papers, and articles to support most of his arguments. This is one of those books worth reading simply because they burst your bubble, because they make you think, and question the status quo. The message in favor of more women leadership is very powerful and I swear I thought the author was a woman until after the end of the book when I did some additional investigation. The message, though, is that for women to be taken into account as leaders we must value what they have to offer as leaders, instead of trying to transform them into something they are not, i.e. yet another male leader.

  18. 4 out of 5

    André Amorim

    A very interesting and enlightening book about leadership. About stereotypes and mostly about why men have more commanding roles in business, management and decision making roles. Women are trapped in years and years of bad decisions, perception and wrong doing. I do agree with most of Tomas statements and I am a firm believe that gender equality should be a reality in leadership roles and I am the first to admit that women do carry a more hands on and reality approach to decision making. I do h A very interesting and enlightening book about leadership. About stereotypes and mostly about why men have more commanding roles in business, management and decision making roles. Women are trapped in years and years of bad decisions, perception and wrong doing. I do agree with most of Tomas statements and I am a firm believe that gender equality should be a reality in leadership roles and I am the first to admit that women do carry a more hands on and reality approach to decision making. I do hope we can change the future - now.

  19. 5 out of 5

    Erica

    In summary, people easily confuse confidence with competence in men. Therefore men who appear confident are assumed to be competent. Confidence in women is more often seen as a negative trait so they do not get the same benefits from confidence. This readable book brings in lots of research and examples.

  20. 5 out of 5

    Mayra Morales

    This is a very good book about leadership and the bias of perception between men and women in leadership roles. As the author mentions through the chapters, incredibly, women have the same bias as men have about the women performance, tough but true, and revealing.

  21. 5 out of 5

    Leon Lyell

    My main take-away from ‘Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders?: (And How to Fix It)’ is that we don’t need to set gender, or other, quotas so much as get a better idea of what good leaders look like. Some great ideas are set out in table 6.1 on page 123.

  22. 5 out of 5

    Reneer

    Julia Gillard was right this is a fabulous book and one I will no doubt read a few times and share amongst my female colleagues.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Richard

    There is no doubt that the examples of inadequate leadership in the book were abysmal and the "leaders" are male, but this flawed book is mostly sexist pandering focusing on cultivating contempt. I've known poor “leaders”, some male and some female. Gender does not make a good leader. As this book is not profitable for the reader, get another book. A book containing actionable research like Scaling Leadership by Robert J. Anderson would be a better use of time and money. There is no doubt that the examples of inadequate leadership in the book were abysmal and the "leaders" are male, but this flawed book is mostly sexist pandering focusing on cultivating contempt. I've known poor “leaders”, some male and some female. Gender does not make a good leader. As this book is not profitable for the reader, get another book. A book containing actionable research like Scaling Leadership by Robert J. Anderson would be a better use of time and money.

  24. 5 out of 5

    Deepak

    While the title seems a little misleading, the crux of the book is that the way leaders are selected / evaluated is incorrect ( maybe it was ok a few decades back ) but now it has to change with the times...EQ is the most important factor and basis the factors important for leadership selection / evaluation, Women are naturally better suited than men...the good point about the book was the fact that the author is able to table the points from both sides and intact even argues against the current While the title seems a little misleading, the crux of the book is that the way leaders are selected / evaluated is incorrect ( maybe it was ok a few decades back ) but now it has to change with the times...EQ is the most important factor and basis the factors important for leadership selection / evaluation, Women are naturally better suited than men...the good point about the book was the fact that the author is able to table the points from both sides and intact even argues against the current fad of having diversity for the sake of it..the bottom line is that we need better leaders and it really doesn't matter whether they are from the same gender, ethnicity etc or not

  25. 4 out of 5

    Elizabeth

    It’s unfortunate but not surprising that Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic’s ‘Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders?’ rings true for me. We need to look no further than the White House and the Supreme Court for examples of incompetent and/or unqualified men reaching the highest levels of leadership. The book does a good job of exposing some of the dynamics at play in the workplace today (but I do wish Chamorro-Premuzic would provide more ideas around ways to weed-out incompetent men before they ac It’s unfortunate but not surprising that Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic’s ‘Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders?’ rings true for me. We need to look no further than the White House and the Supreme Court for examples of incompetent and/or unqualified men reaching the highest levels of leadership. The book does a good job of exposing some of the dynamics at play in the workplace today (but I do wish Chamorro-Premuzic would provide more ideas around ways to weed-out incompetent men before they actually become senior leaders).

  26. 4 out of 5

    Liber

    My main take away fro this book is the idea that organizations should look for the best characteristics of leadership rather than just increasing the number of women in leadership positions. By doing this we can avoid incompetent leaders from both gender not just from men. This book is easy to read and full of insights in leadership. The title of the book is catchy while the content live up to it. Personally, I find the witty approach of the author amusing.

  27. 5 out of 5

    Julia

    I received an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review. On first glance, this book may appear to be anti-male or disparaging. That is not at all the case. This book instead, is enlightening about what is required for leadership and why we have so often put those who are unqualified there - particularly men. The study, stats as well as practical advice for better leadership hiring and practices make this a great read. I recommend to anyone who is involved in the leadership world.

  28. 5 out of 5

    Vero Antillano

    Not to be fooled by the title, it is not entirely a feminist or gender-biased book, it simply questions the methods organizations have set today for finding, engaging, and promoting talent in the workplace and how it is not always aligned with an organization's best interest, how it can be fooled by astute incompetent individuals. Not to be fooled by the title, it is not entirely a feminist or gender-biased book, it simply questions the methods organizations have set today for finding, engaging, and promoting talent in the workplace and how it is not always aligned with an organization's best interest, how it can be fooled by astute incompetent individuals.

  29. 5 out of 5

    Genevieve

    Interesting concepts; I liked that it highlighted the flawed ways in which we identify and choose leaders. However, it did feel a bit repetitive and simplistic at times, and could not really offer a lot of concrete solutions.

  30. 4 out of 5

    Kajoli Tankha

    Title is provocative. Book is an excellent analysis of how confidence gets confused with competence and the qualities that really should be associated with leadership

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...