Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

If Humble People Make the Best Leaders, Why Do We Fall for Charismatic Narcissists? (hbr.org)

Posted by msmash on from the things-to-ponder dept.

Numerous studies and real-life examples show humble, unassuming people as leaders improve the performance of a company in the long run. The humity, exuded by these leaders, can be contagious. Yet, instead of following the lead of these unsung heroes, an article on Harvard Business Review argues, we appear hardwired to search for people who exude charisma. The article looks into why such is the case: One study suggests that despite being perceived as arrogant, narcissistic individuals radiate "an image of a prototypically effective leader." Narcissistic leaders know how to draw attention toward themselves. They enjoy the visibility. It takes time for people to see that these early signals of competence are not later realized, and that a leader's narcissism reduces the exchange of information among team members and often negatively affects group performance. It's not that charismatic and narcissistic people can't ever make good leaders. In some circumstances, they can. For example, one study found that narcissistic CEOs "favor bold actions that attract attention, resulting in big wins or big losses." A narcissistic leader thus can represent a high-risk, high-reward proposition.

14 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. Simple math... by prince+hal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because we're idiots.

    1. Re:Simple math... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because we're primates that evolved living in small family groups, and our social instincts developed before we were intelligent enough to understand their shortcomings.

      And now that we do have these relatively fantastic brains... most people don't bother to try.

    2. Re:Simple math... by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nah, we're stupid.

      Millions of people play the lottery, thinking "somebody has to win!" while completely ignoring the fact that the lottery companies make huge profits.

      Ditto casinos: If the wallpaper is gold, there's free drinks and the croupiers are earning wages then you think you're going to win some money in that room? Really....?

      All a politician has to do is sell a bigger dream than the other politicians. There's enough stupid around that they'll eventually win.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Simple math... by wizkid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's some truth to this. But on this last election cycle, Bernie is probably pretty close to a the humble side, not the wacko side of the scale. If the dem's handn't shot him down and let him win. I don't think we'd have trump in the big house.

      There are a very large number of people out there that don't want a bunch of gangsters like the clintons in office.

      --
      I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
    4. Re:Simple math... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is how I read it as well. A lot of neurological and psychological machinery evolved in a considerably different habitat than most humans now live. We're wired to be hunter-gatherers; small and generally fairly mobile groups where leaders were far closer to those that they lead. If you look at other primates, and in particular our closest relatives the Great Apes, you can see how a combination of physical strength and bravado are usually what make for an alpha male; basically the tribal leader. But in those relatively small groups, challenges to the leadership are relatively frequent, so that a shit leader isn't going to last very long at all.

      Civilization has rewritten the rules, in no small part because what's good for a tribal hunter-gatherer society like our ancestors or like chimpanzees, just doesn't scale up at all. But our every instinct, written over millions of years of hunter-gatherer society, remains attracted to charisma (and physical appearance as well). We really are still just hairless apes; big brains, but a lot of social instinct that gets in the way, and it's going to take a lot longer than the mere 10,000 years or so that we've been developing urban civilization to evolve a different psychological toolkit.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Simple math... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because we're idiots.

      No we're not, we're just ignorant. The charismatic narcissists tell a good story, they tell us they can fix it, they tell us they understand what's wrong, they relate well to us to the point we think they also see what we see and they can fix it. That's politics, but these same people succeed in business to for the same reason, except they merely need to swindle a considerably smaller group of people.

      The guy who tells the truth, that we have bad problems and they may not be entirely fixable, or that the middle class must necessarily bear the lions share of the tax burden, or that many of our perceived problems are more about not making the huge profits from WWII reparations that our parents benefitted from, and instead having huge debt from various police actions since then which we shouldered the costs for, that while there is a better way to live our country is largely ruled by a small group of wealthy self-interested pricks that we cannot effectively stop all at once, but must work collectively, both nationally and internationally to ensure they such people do not have a place on earth in the future.

      Do you want to vote for that guy? He's probably right, but his story is depressing and he's telling us uncomfortable things.

    6. Re:Simple math... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess it depends on your standards. If your standards are low enough, then all of humanity is really smart.

      "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    7. Re:Simple math... by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's another factor you're failing to consider. While it'd be nice if we could spend years researching every topic before making a decision, frequently (and arguably the majority of the time) that is simply not an option. There's value in how quickly a decision can be made. Often, a mediocre quick decision can yield a better outcome than a well-researched, well thought-out decision which takes months or years to arrive at. This is why militaries organize themselves into ranks and chains of command - because in combat, the situation changes so quickly that if you spend hours or sometimes even minutes trying to completely understand the it, your conclusions will be obsolete by the time you reach them. You have to make a decision quickly based on the incomplete and imperfect information you have at that moment.

      That's why people are attracted to charismatic and confident leaders - because their ability to make quick decisions frequently has value. And once a decision has been made you can only compare to a hypothetical (what if a different decision had been made?). And confidence is great at swaying people away from thinking the hypothetical is better than the reality.

      You're actually using a classic coping mechanism for those not on the winning side of a decision - denigrating the decision maker by claiming this quick-decision process does not scale up at all. It scales up just fine. It's just that as you scale up, the number of decisions which need to be made increases. So even though the percentage of decisions which are better served by well thought-out research remains the same, the number of them also increases.

      If we really want to progress as a species, we have to avoid falling for either extreme of this argument. Certain decisions are better made quickly, even if there's incomplete or imperfect information. Other decisions can wait and are better if made after careful and thorough research. Both methods have merit. The test of our intelligence is whether we recognize them and treat them appropriately. Or whether we'll blithely apply a one-size-fits-all decision-making strategy just because we happen to like or dislike charismatic people.

    8. Re:Simple math... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We're wired to be hunter-gatherers; small and generally fairly mobile groups where leaders were far closer to those that they lead.

      While I'm sure you're right about some of this, I think perhaps an even bigger effect is reinforcement through social norms. What are the "myths" of our modern societies? When we tell stories of "heroes," what are they like?

      And from fairy tales and fables through our modern blockbuster movies, we tend to emphasize the powerful, charismatic leader who takes risks, instead of the quiet, stable dude who actually gets stuff done day-to-day without seeking the limelight.

      Sure, we get the occasional "inspirational" story of the humble, quiet dude who finally gets recognition after laboring in obscurity for decades. But most of the "humble" types we see in fiction only become main characters when they start to act in unusual ways that bring attention, perhaps even becoming literal "superheroes" in much recent fiction. The standard superhero trope of the quiet guy who evolves special powers to save humanity is perhaps the ultimate beta-male fantasy: you skip all the social factors, physical prowess, etc. that get you attention and power and instead just are granted the power directly.

      Part of this is the nature of drama, too. Do we really want to read a book or see a movie about a guy who labored steadily in his office for 40 years and contributed to the company through all his quiet deeds? Or do we want to hear the guy make speeches, and have high-profile successes (and failures), and have "drama" as he works his way up?

      Even our news is shaped this way. It's a major factor in Trump's success. He clearly managed to get "free publicity" from news organizations most days during his election. Whether you liked him or hated him, he knew how to draw people's attention (both good and bad).

      Humble people just don't tend to draw that sort of attention -- not in our fiction, not in the news, etc. The closest we get is the occasional story about the value of "introverts" or whatever, but it's not enough. Until our dominant culture celebrates the humble folks in stories, in our news, etc. and acknowledges their superior results on a regular basis, there's no way they'll be valued as much.

  2. Logical thinkers vs Emotional thinkers by colin_faber · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As this is something that I've thought about for some time. I believe the big reason here is not that people are stupid, or uninformed, I think it's more a matter of where they fall for the fuzzy decisions in life, either on the more logical side of things or emotional. Generally humble, quiet, non abrasive types tend to not evoke the same kinds of emotional response that you would see with charismatic narcissists. A fantastic example of this was the 2012 presidential election, emotions ruled.

    1. Re:Logical thinkers vs Emotional thinkers by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People are very bad at risk assessment.

      Trump sold the voters on the danger of ISIS and Islam when in reality only a tiny fraction of a percent of the population has ever been killed by them.

      He then proceeded to dismantle the healthcare system with the blessing of his voters despite the fact that millions of people are killed by curable illness every single year.

      Go figure.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Logical thinkers vs Emotional thinkers by Linsaran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Presidential elections tend to be ruled by emotions rather than logic, because people as a whole tend to be ruled by emotions rather than logic. If humans generally resorted to logic when it came to electing our leaders, the world would be a much more sane place.

      --
      In a bit of shameless internet panhandling, I accept Litecoin Donations at Lbd2oH9QsthD1GfuUXPyka12YxvWJYnBVf
  3. Simple by wickerprints · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The appearance of competence is not the same as actual competence.

    Actual competence is difficult to assess when the outcome measures are subjective.

    Incompetent yet successful people are more likely to be proficient at masking their incompetence through lying and psychopathic manipulation.

  4. Re:why do i feel like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You feel like that because you have been completely manipulated by charismatic sociopaths to believe that anyone who disagrees with them (and by extension, you) is literally worse than Adolf Hitler.

    Subtle lesson you will never learn: humility isn't about how loud you speak in front of a cheering crowd, it's about whether you value other people and their opinions. You clearly despise your parents, believing that what you read on Daily Kos makes you more aware of reality than their 20-30 years of additional first-hand experience, which shows you have no humility.