Two Signs That Instantly Identify Someone With Bad Leadership Skills
The very traits we thought led to leadership success no longer hold true, according to research.
By Marcel Schwantes, Founder and Chief Human Officer, Leadership From the Core
Comments by Charles Sulka
(URL of original article follows commentary)
.
.
In this article by Marcel Schwantes, the writer clearly wants to lead us down the yellow brick road. Apparently Schwantes wants us to distance ourselves from reality. Think about what he is saying.
Schwantes is a motivational speaker and writer whose philosophy incorporates quite a bit of pop psychology and more than a few questionable ideas. Apparently his target audience is the corporate world. If the man has any formal training, he makes no mention of it on his web site. As there are no footnotes in this article, it is impossible to know where his ideas come from, other than the hidden recesses of his own mind. He does cite one source in the article — a questionable authority on human nature and leadership. From what I can see, this might be the extent of his scholarship in the field.
Schwantes’ article on leadership ends with a counter-intuitive conclusion that is fully in keeping with post-modernist philosophy and neo-Marxist politics (cultural Marxism): “While both males and females are equal when it comes to IQ, studies show that women have greater EQ [emotional intelligence] and, in general, perform better as leaders.” It would be helpful if this ‘expert’, who has assumed the title of “chief human officer” in his own self-promoting style, would cite some credible authorities for this assertion.
Schwantes’ assertion that women make better leaders is not only counter-intuitive — it flies in the face of objective reality. Or, to put it bluntly, Schwantes’ assertion is nonsense.
There is a lot to think about here. From what I have read on the subject, many studies do show that girls have higher IQs than boys (and girls mature earlier, too.) But it takes a deeper look into human nature to see things in perspective.
I suspect that most would agree that women’s intellectual development seems to be negatively impacted by hormones at the onset of puberty. Moreover, science has proven that women lose as much as 20% of their brains during pregnancy (see Notes.) Men’s intellectual development seems to be a gradual process — often getting off to a slow start — that begins at puberty and generally stops at nuptials. This is subtle, but important if we are to understand the intellectual development of men vs women. The cessation of intellectual development in men might not be solely attributable to beer and professional sports on television. It could also be caused by mind-numbing female hormones which are transferred to the man from his wife. While the woman is losing a significant part of her brain (presumably to the developing fetus) she is blasting her mate’s brain cells with female hormones. All this is part of a complex, deep-rooted chemical process designed to ensure the propagation of the species. Emotional bonding, mutual dependency, and dopamine bliss (‘flling in love’) create the conditions essential to gestation and child rearing.
While I am critical of Schwantes’ position on this issue, I do not want to be unfairly critical of the man’s work. I could not agree more that egomania and psychopathy are on the rise and threaten to destroy the world. Just look at the American government, starting with the lunatics in the White House (which is all of them.) And I wholeheartedly agree that a reordering of business priorities, employment practices, and corporate values is absolutely necessary in modern society.
But let’s be real here. The evidence shows overwhelmingly that women in politics and women in executive roles in business do not make effective leaders. Just look around. Look at some real studies. Look at the statistics.
This article demonstrates how foolish today’s self-described ‘experts’ can be. The breakdown of traditional family and community values is recognized (by everyone, except for those living in fantasy-land) to be the major cause of the disintegration of society today. This writer’s poorly thought out suppositions are contributing to the confusion in modern society — widespread confusion which is rapidly causing the collapse of society everywhere. To make it perfectly clear, Schwantes’ ideas are exactly the sort of nonsense that is behind the world’s troubles today. Left unchecked, such concepts could mean the end of the human race.
To say that women are more suitable to leadership roles because they are more emotionally developed has got to be one of the craziest things anyone has ever said. The truth of the matter — and anyone with any sense will recognize this immediately — is that women are more emotional and erratic (driven by uncontrollable emotions) than men. Maybe even more so than children.
[Think about it. Young girls almost never display the viciousness, the rage, and the often barely suppressed seething emotional confusion exhibited by women after puberty. While not very scientific, it does seem to be true that little girls are made of ‘sugar and spice and everything nice.’ Teen-aged girls, on the other hand, seem to try their best to conceal the sweet, innocent little girl inside. Or so it seems.]
Women are psychologically and biologically unsuited to leadership roles. Women are, conversely, perfectly suited to the role of mother and chief care giver, which is by far the more important function in human society. Without mothers the human race would not survive even a single generation. God and Mother Nature have conspired to create men and women with complementary natures, ideally matched to their respective roles. To state the obvious in its simplest terms, a man’s role is to bring home the bacon and a woman’s role is to cook it up in a pan. The woman must feed the babies and the man must defend against life’s threats. The man must deal with all threats … and that includes the most insidious threat — dangerous ideas, like this veiled call for a matriarchal society. Patriarchy, with all of its shortcomings (there are many, and we are told about them every day) is the only way that works. What part of this fundamental reality is so difficult to comprehend?
With respect to women as bosses … studies have clearly shown that no one wants a woman boss, and nobody likes a bossy woman. Women take things personally. Women are spiteful. Women are subject to mood swings induced both by hormones as well as brain physiology. As clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson points out, (real, not imaginary) studies have shown that women are more violent than men by nature. It is just that women are not so dangerous as men because their violence is comparatively ineffective, as they are weaker and not naturally skilled nor trained in the application of violence. Moreover, women’s rages are usually short lived, something we can all be thankful for, eh? (Mother Nature, have mercy on us.)
[This is not to suggest that women *forget* the incidents that enrage them. Women never forget a slight, real or imagined. For a scientific (?) explanation, see Mark Gungor’s video “Men’s Brains Vs Women’s Brains” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KrOZe2SxoQ .]
To summarize: women are less capable in analysis, less capable in strategizing, and less capable in visualizing the outcome of their actions. Women are definitely less capable in the effective use of force when the use of force is necessary. Women are unstable, driven by emotions, subject to mood swings and outbursts of violence, especially invective. In short, women are by nature unsuitable to leadership roles.
We do not need to look far for proof of this. There are countess examples in the modern world which demonstrate that women are unsuited to leadership roles. The social order is breaking down — whole nations are collapsing in chaos, causing immense suffering — because of stupid policies enacted by the left (primarily homosexuals and women.) Look at Angela Merkel in Germany; look at Scandinavia; look at Canada. Look at the U.K., reduced to ashes by Margaret Thatcher, whose rule was so bad she was removed from office by her own party. Could anyone in their right mind say that these nations — all led (or previously led) by women or homosexuals — are faring well? Get serious.
Or, as my young niece might say, get a brain and try to figure out how to use it. [I am terrified of what will happen when this girl reaches puberty. All I can do is pray: Mother Nature, have mercy on us all. Amen.]
Notes:
Several posts on [charlessulka.com] explore related issues:
* NEW STUDY: PREGNANCY CHANGES WOMEN’S BRAINS
https://charlessulka.com/?page_id=446
* WOMEN’S ANTICIPATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS OF MOTHERHOOD – EVIDENCE AND IMPLICATIONS
https://charlessulka.com/?page_id=682
* WHY DOES YOUR MOM LOVE ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE (GMSKEPTIC)
https://charlessulka.com/?page_id=649
And several videos on the BLACK PIGEON SPEAKS channel on Youtube provide incisive commentary on the issue of women in politics:
* ONLY Patriarchy Builds Nations & other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN1GwOLgjVs
* How Women Dismantle NATIONS & other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOMkl3ApTK0
URL OF ARTICLE: https://www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/2-signs-that-instantly-identify-someone-with-bad-leadership-skills.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab
WARNING:
Some will regard this publication (“INC.”) as being a not-family-friendly site. Inc. was formerly a strictly pro-business publication. A quick glance at the articles on the site reveals that at this point the focus is on cultural Marxism, homosexuality and the so-called gay lifestyle, the ‘pride’ of being queer, perverted sex, pop psychology, the New Age Movement, radical feminism, etc. I have not checked to see whether the writers or the site’s management are on the sex offenders’ registry (which would not surprise me), nor whether they advocate or engage in pedophilia.
(chs 07-02-2019 0943 -0500 / 08-16-2019 1838 -0500)
———-
2 Signs That Instantly Identify Someone With Bad Leadership Skills
The very traits we thought led to leadership success no longer hold true, according to research.
By Marcel Schwantes, Founder and Chief Human Officer, Leadership From the Core
@MarcelSchwantes
Egomaniacs are on the rise, especially within the leadership ranks of companies across the world, which is detrimental to good business outcomes.
Leadership and management expert and best-selling author Ken Blanchard warns us:
The ego is one of the biggest barriers to people working together effectively. When people get caught up in their egos, it erodes their effectiveness. That’s because the combination of false pride and self-doubt created by an overactive ego gives people a distorted image of their own importance. When that happens, people see themselves as the center of the universe and they begin to put their own agenda, safety, status, and gratification ahead of those affected by their thoughts and actions.
The challenge is keeping such self-centered leaders and managers from taking their teams or companies down a path toward self-destruction. After all, we speak of personality characteristics–some of which border on personality disorders.
So how can we curtail the mechanisms that keep feeding egomaniacs into the higher echelons of corporate society? The answer is not so simple. It will require a systemic shift not only in our leadership selection processes but in our collective minds.
Stop rewarding two typical male traits
What we think true leadership is is far from the truth. Psychologist Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, chief talent scientist at ManpowerGroup and a professor of business psychology at University College London and at Columbia University, points out that we’ve historically equated leadership with personality traits statistically more likely to be found in men: confidence and charisma.
In his phenomenal and alarming book Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders? (And How to Fix It), he explains how these same two characteristics can later backfire as overconfidence, narcissism, and even psychopathy, resulting in disaster.
Here’s why you should not reward people–men or women alike–with the two masculine traits we have historically elevated as “leadership material” since the industrial age.
1. How confidence will backfire.
Confidence is often disguised and falsely perceived as a leadership competency. In my interview with Chamorro-Premuzic on the Love in Action podcast, he points out that while most people look at a confident person and assume the person is also competent, there is in fact no relationship between confidence and competence.
Competence is how good you are at something. Confidence is how good you think you are at something. “Decades of research suggest that on virtually any dimension of ability, we tend to assume that we are better than we actually are,” says Chamorro-Premuzic
While confidence is good to have, overconfident leaders overrate their ability and job performance, and are more prone to reckless decisions because they are immune to negative feedback.
2. How charisma will backfire.
Some of the most successful leaders in the world are known for their charisma. But while charisma has been associated with extroversion, drive, and even more physically attractive features, it is hard to define and measure, and it exists in the eye of the beholder.
According to Chamorro-Premuzic, “Charisma clouds people’s evaluations of how leaders actually perform. Rather than being objective, we are less judgmental about leaders’ performance when we see them as charismatic, and we are more critical when we don’t.”
He also points out that charisma, when combined with narcissism and psychopathy, is a lethal combination. However, research has shown when followers have more information on a leader, the importance of charisma declines.
Whom to reward, instead, for leadership roles
According to Chamorro-Premuzic, the best leaders combine IQ (intellectual intelligence) with EQ (emotional intelligence), which enable personal effectiveness and self-awareness. While both males and females are equal when it comes to IQ, studies show that women have greater EQ and, in general, perform better as leaders.
Chamorro-Premuzic also points out that a high EQ is also associated with people-centered leaders who are more humble, honest, and ethical. To his point, the shift to focusing on selecting and developing more leaders with these traits–as competencies–would also help correct the gender imbalance in higher leadership ranks, since the underlying issue remains that we, as a society, lack valuing these traits in the leaders we choose.
To bring this discussion home, it’s crucially important to remember that the very traits that propel more men into leadership are the same traits that get them fired. In other words, what it takes to get a leadership role is nearly opposite of what it takes to do it well and keep the role.
Published on: Jun 20, 2019
(c) 2018 Manuseto Ventures
…