Why So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders With Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic

Welcome to the psychology podcast where we give you information about mind, brain behavior and creativity. I'm Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman and every episode I have a conversation with a guest that will stimulate your mind and give you a greater understanding of yourself, others, and the world we live in. Hopefully, he will also give you insight into human possibilities. Thank you for listening and enjoying the podcast. today it's great to have opera music by Tomas Chamorro on the podcast Tomas is the chief talent scientist at manpower Group, a professor of business psychology at University College London and Columbia University, and an associate at the Harvard Business Finance Laboratory.

He is the author of Why Do So Many. Incompetent Men Become Leaders and How to Fix It, as well as nine other books and more than one hundred and sixty scientific publications. He is a co-founder of Deeper Signals and Metaprofiling and is a regular contributor to HP, our Fast Company, and Business Insider, Thomas, so cool to Chat with you today, yeah, same way, thanks for having me, Scott, yeah, what a topic So interesting of a book. I didn't see it coming, you know, I've seen your other books and then this one came out and I thought, why that one? so maybe you could tell me the genesis of this topic, you know, I mean, I considered writing one with the title Why do so

many

competent men

become

leaders

?

But we thought it would sell less now, joking aside, the book originated or grew out of an article and an essay. I wrote for HBR in 2013 and it was a reaction to Sheryl Sandberg's linen argument. I felt that people needed an alternative in the form of a psychological explanation for why so

many

competent women failed to reach the ranks of

leaders

hip and, in my opinion, the problem was not that they were not leaning towards or emulating men, but that We're not very good at judging people's competence in general and we confuse confidence with competence and, you know, we unfairly and incorrectly reward those who think very highly of themselves, even when you're not very good and that's to the detriment of those who do.

They have talent, but perhaps they are more modest, humble, etc. Yes, so I'm trying to understand exactly how your narrative is different from the standard narrative so that most people focus on the underrepresentation of women in leadership. positions through reasons like discrimination and some psychologists argue through motivation, you know that women on average or are not as motivated by achievement and social status and things like that as men, so you don't deny some of Those reasons too, but first. of everything, you don't deny alternative explanations, yes, basically our multiple factors, there are always multiple factors, and you definitely know, don't deny the kind of context, well sociopolitical, let's say, the macro factors that contribute to the glass ceiling that we have.

We all know, for example, that when countries change maternity and paternity laws to make them similar, a big difference is immediately created, you know that these are changes in regulations and the laws would exist and you know that they are in the hands of politicians, But when it comes down to psychological reasons, people typically focus on differences in ability or motivation, and while there are few data-driven people today who would argue that there are significant differences in the ability to lead, still, a Often those same people would say, oh, you know I do. It has to do with differences in the motivations of aspirations and, in fact, if you look at the science that has been published in the last 10 to 15 years throughout the industrialized world, there are no longer differences.

Women are just as interested in being managers or leaders as men. really exactly, although there may still be gender differences in other dimensions, such as when we look at interesting things like mathematics versus educational psychology, etc., when it comes to leadership in particular, there do not seem to be gender differences in the motivation that be correct, correct and even if you take, for example, you know the research that I know you are familiar with on traditional gender differences in vocational interests, even if you look at the one that is based on much older historical differences in the differences gender in motivation or vocational interests.

You would find that typically men are more interested in things, maybe ideas, and women are more interested in people. Well, what does that tell you about being interested in being a manager or leader, which is primarily about dealing with people? What a good point, if anything, it could make the argument that women are better suited to manage humans correct even when Google fires James does more to cite that research, they don't actually interpret that even their own interpretation race what Jeff suggested that, if anything, women are more naturally inclined to be managers, yes. It's an interesting twist and I think it's a good point, so I'm glad to have you on the podcast today.

Thank you, so I just want to talk about these reasons that you offer for so many

incompetent

men that you present, three and In this TEDx talk I saw of yours, I wonder if you could go over all three. Okay, sure, and we can talk about each one. Yes, absolutely very good. You know the main reason is a disconnect that exists between people's leadership archetypes. people in their views or fantasized models of what it is to be a leader and Tails and the attributes that are really needed to be an effective leader and, more specifically, I dive into three attributes: the first is our emphasis on trust instead of the competition.

The second one is ours, let's just go through each one and then have a discussion about it, so first you know that people focus more on confidence than competence. What that means is that it's much easier to observe, certainly, if you look at how leaders are complicit or evaluated in most corporations in most organizations there is a very strong focus on short-term interactions. , unstructured interviews, conversations, face-to-face meetings, etc., which means that it is much easier for people to observe things like assertiveness, confidence, than to actually find out if someone has competence in today's world, you know that Leadership is very complex and unless you have a lot of experience, you will find it very difficult to assess whether someone has good technical skills, expertise in a specific domain and even things like intelligence, creativity, curiosity, these things are not easy. observable, but confidence is, and especially in the Western world and primarily in the United States, we've complained about this idea that when people are assertive or seem confident, they must be good, you know, it's kind of fake it until you make it.

You get the idea, oh yeah. We really have trouble distinguishing between these things and I think I correctly remember a book about invisible gorillas that Christopher Chambray and co-wrote and talk about much better, uh-oh, that's one of the strong prejudices among humans is that the inability to distinguish between those two, so that's one of the reasons why there are so many men in office. What is the second one? The second is that we emphasize charisma instead of focusing on humility. In fact, you know you've been paying lip service to humility for the last two or three decades by quoting books. like Jim Collins is good to great saying oh yes, the best leaders are humble, but if you look at our leadership choices, whether in organizations or politics, they very rarely reflect an interest in having leaders who are humble, the Most of the time we focus on whether they seem to have, you know the x factor, whether they are entertaining in the American presidential elections.

I think the strongest predictor of who wins, besides height, is who you'd rather have a beer with, you know, that could be good. but most voters probably weren't going to be able to have a beer with the president, certainly not with the current one, who is teetotal, but in general you know that it doesn't matter if you select people with those characters, of course, one can be charismatic and competent, but if you focus so much on charisma and select people based solely on the impressions they make in televised debates or brief interactions, you will inadvertently hire a lot of people who are not as competent, including some people who might have some biases. psychopathic and some dark side traits yes, yes, there is a quote of yours that says that there is a surplus of charismatic leaders with a fascinating dark side, that is an interesting quote mm-hmm exactly, you know it's a kind of vicious circle because sometimes We all love to read books or watch movies about such leaders because they are captivating, but let me tell you, people would be much better off if they were led by leaders who are actually quite boring, predictable and not so psychopathic.

Yeah, keep it on TV, right, exactly, so the third one. Yes, for me, Thurman, yes, and then the third is that, in some ways, it's more recent, but it's a pretty common phenomenon. We are more likely to select individuals who are narcissistic, even if they are mild narcissistic tendencies that are called self-obsessed people who are their biggest fans and admirers and who seduce with megalomaniacal visions that are impossible to execute than people with integrity, I think. certainly if you look at the large number of scandals that have been reported in the last ten years and if there is a big one What is learned from the hashtag "me to age" is that for too long we have selected for leadership roles individuals who are They feel so entitled that they think they can literally get away with anything and they have no name and they're not very good at self-control and You know, there's a general lack of integrity and morality in our leadership elections and when I say elections, you know, I mean to democracies, when people vote and elect candidates, and also to organizations or corporations, when human resources departments are in charge of making these decisions, yes. so by linking this to nurses and dealers you are citing research on the statistically significant difference on average between men and women in the trait grandiose narcissism, that's right, yes, that's right, so Peter's harm study and it's Interestingly, in that same study, the meta-analysis shows that there is a worrying chronological effect whereby in the last two or three decades gender differences in narcissism have been decreasing mainly because women are becoming as narcissistic as men. , but men still have an advantage and more importantly, the main point I want to make is that narcissists are over-rated in leadership roles, they are at least three to four times more likely to be in leadership roles that in the type of employee roles or overpopulation is that that is narcissism, but would you say that the whole dark triad is? you know, as you know, they are often confused and sometimes the measures that are used in this study may not be pure measures of narcissism, but they have some elements of Machiavellianism, certainly, even if you look at a lot of the advice that the self-help industry focuses on when it comes to helping people

become

leaders preach or form ends with Machiavellian manipulation tactics, if your way of helping people become leaders is to help them show off, take taking credit for other people's achievements, blaming others for your mistakes, brand and you. they know BS, their way up and they develop political knowledge, it's a lot like a house of cards episode and you know there are certainly overlapping characteristics between that and being Machiavellian, yeah, and then the third member of the Tartan, some people my listeners such maybe they don't know. our triad consists of Machiavellianism, narcissism and subcortical psychopathy, but you know there is this research trying to understand what the dark core of all these dark tracers means even more because some people have said that there is even or there is sadism, there is grudge, etc., etc., he says. there seems to be an initial core of callousness and manipulation, Ness is right and where, broadly speaking, there are deficits of empathy and, you know, a greater focus or attention on promoting one's own individual interests, even if it comes at the expense of others, you know and I believe.

In a way, I sometimes like to use the evolutionary kind of term for the free-rider phenomenon or effect because you can see why you know for a fact that if the system is moral enough and works well, it will always allow a certain number of individuals. take the initiative. more than they gave and they take advantage of that system where things start to go wrong is when the majority of the people in the system certainly those who are in charge have these positive effects and that is in a way the organizations and they will self-destruct, but the problem is that there are many casualties and people who suffer the consequences, so we better avoid them by minimizing.

You know, the dark side tendencies people have when they're in leadership roles. What ruin the levels of our system? Look,you know, always. say grow up, I grew up in Argentina, where you know we are probably the most diluted nation and eleven, so neither I nor the Americans, yes, I think so, I think so, I mean, certainly because, if anything, the United States still has the performance and competence to back it up for the most part. true, you could argue that it's okay, it's not as good as it was before, but at least it's still on most measures of economic output, the world's superpower Argentina was the superpower or a superpower in 1870 it has been declining since then , but people's egos are still intact and just as high.

As always, you know, I often describe myself as a recovering Argentinian and by that I mean that in the last 20 years, which is the time I spent abroad, I have been trying to work on decreasing my confidence and my narcissism and becoming less titled and more humble. more modest and you know it's painful at first but it's very useful in the end now you're going to run the risk of angering your fellow Argentinians when they listen to this podcast and also like if you presented a similar argument in your TED talk 10x yes, but you know, I think that when you're really sure this isn't about you because you're cool, something similar happened with my book for a few years.

I proposed to HBR to turn my article into a book and they said, look, we can't publish this because 70% of our listeners are male executives and you're actually insulting them and I said, don't worry, most of them won't notice. Realize that it's about them because that requires self-awareness. The same happens with Argentines. You know, they laugh at my jokes because "Yes, other people in my country are deluded, but I'm not, it's better than the average about us, yes, that saves here, that piyah saves you book sales. I just wanted to take advantage of this moment to thank you all for your support podcast over the years, it's been a real privilege to make this podcast for all of you over the last four years.

It's been a real labor of love. If you want to continue supporting the podcast, I wanted to. Let you know some things you could do. To help make it a better experience for all of you first, I would really appreciate it if you could subscribe to the psychology podcast on iTunes. This would help make the show more featured on iTunes and increase our audience I think. which they can subscribe to both on their iPhone and on your computer, secondly, it would be great if you could rate and review the show on iTunes I definitely read all the reviews and they are helpful for others who are thinking about giving the show a listen, something else.

What you can do is donate something. to the show, even just the price of a cup of coffee would really help me continue to do this podcast so that you all donate something. You can calmly go to the psychology podcast and click the link at the bottom that says become a patron, so thank you. again for your incredible support of the show over the years, you know I do the show for all of you because I really love sharing my enthusiasm and love for the mind, the brain and creativity and I really appreciate you joining me on this journey.

Okay, now back to the show, so I just want to talk for a second about this third point about narcissism and how you're filtering this to men because we found out that you know, I think one possible criticism of your work is that you're letting women off the hook. . Too easily, as women, on average we find in our research scoring higher than men in vulnerable narcissism, a different type of narcissism that is more associated with self-preoccupation, anxiety, and personal insecurity, and there is still a level of entitlement that is what makes it part of the narcissism complex, so couldn't you argue that neither men nor women are better or worse, but somehow it manifests, their narcissism manifests in different ways? different ways?

Yeah, I think that's a valid point and you know, I think. So I use broader and perhaps more exaggerated terms to distinguish between a type of neurotic narcissism and a psychotic narcissist, and therefore the former is more insecure. I don't know if you watch the British version of The Office you haven't seen the American one, but in the British one it's very clear that the main character played by Ricky Gervais is an insecure narcissist, yes, he considers him very much of the feminine type, which you know, he thinks which is great, but it constantly requires validation, constantly, yes, and it is It's very exhausting and actually, not only by being an effective leader, but in general you can train that profile or that type of narcissism more easily than psychotics or the deluded You know, they're megalomaniacal nurses, so I think there's a slight advantage even there. being a woman although of course we're still talking about small effect sizes, yes, perfect, but I think if you look at the big picture and look at yes, on average, where women differ from men is because women tend to be less overconfident even to the point of being more insecure, kinder and more caring, more altruistic, etc., and men are the opposite historically, which has been seen as a male advantage, but I think these are cyclical things if we go past three or four decades selecting a male profile. of a leader there will be a need otherwise, so I'm not saying that you always know that we need to have a more feminine leadership style, but I think that a lot of the problems that we have experienced with our leadership in the last two or three decades are due to this overemphasis or overindexing or people who are overly abrasive, overconfident, reckless, you know, in hypermasculine, so a balance would be good for organizations that have managed to have a more mixed or cognitively diverse configuration of the leader profile which they tended to have. better too I really like that point of trying to get all my potential Christians out there because that's what I do and psychology vodcast so let me think of another one also you know some people can feel like they're really opposed to that you equate hypermasculinity.

As a bad thing, you know, there's a lot of controversy about this Gillette ad that paints some normal male traits, it's necessarily toxic, but couldn't you argue that that's not fair? You're not being fair to men. You know there are a lot of masculine qualities like healthy assertiveness and perseverance and things that are fair and you know that you are careful and you know that you like to manage as many people as possible, which could actually be very beneficial things um, yeah, I think. You're right, you know, and just because I focus on some of the negative effects doesn't mean I'm not aware of the positive effects clearly, too at least the way I see it, I see this as a matter of you know. a continuum there is a range of o in femininity and organized in masculinity, as you know, many biological men are more feminine than some biological women, etc., if anything, my argument is that for too long we have assumed that the characteristics masculine leadership or the masculine type is better than he really is and we focus so much on that or select him for that, that in many cases we end up with leaders who go overboard and display antisocial behavior, bullying his butt and other seas of Kendon that They are so It is common that you know that it is almost the elephant in the room.

I mean, now they transcend it because there are so many famous cases, that doesn't mean that maybe you have healthy characteristics or occupations that you know we've associated with masculinity that are an effect. of masculinity, like being competitive, you know, like you said, being confident to a healthy degree, so if you know anything, there is both the bright and dark side of female masculinity. My point is that we haven't emphasized enough the positive side of being feminine. leader and we haven't really been aware enough of the dark side of masculinity, yes that point is very well taken, so what should we do to improve the quality of our leaders and increase women's leadership?

Because that's important too, right? you don't want to just argue that we just need to make more men like women, we also need more women, right, yeah, you know, this is a great question, so again I have three recommendations that you know are part of the and how. To fix it, part of the book, the first thing is to follow the signs and look for the qualities that really make people better leaders, especially when they don't usually make people leaders, so things like self-awareness, curiosity, interpersonal skills, emotional intelligence, even technical expertise, humility. coachability sometimes there is a theoretical understanding that these are desirable leadership competencies and traits, but there is still not much evidence that we actually select leaders based on these traits, so we basically focus on the right traits, that is the first recommendation , the second is to distrust our instincts. even in today's era where there is so much discussion about evidence-based and data-driven big data, it's now an I, etc., and you know a lot of HR has been rebranded as people analytics, The dominant currency for even these high-stakes decisions of selecting people for the highest ranks of power and leadership is intuition, like this person I just interviewed.

Oh, they will fit perfectly. You know, the same companies that are standing around and wasting money largely on unconscious bias training. You know they hire based on what culture fits. You know, and that. it just replicates biases that are often hard to find because companies don't have the tradition or habit of actually measuring the performance of leaders, so I like you during the interview and then I'm in charge of your performance evaluation and I say you were Great, and then, hey, I was so good, you know, as an advisor or evaluator of leadership potential, so second is mistrust or instincts.

I mean, that's like a really, really big obstacle to progressing in HR in general. Okay, let's take a break because I feel like you're about to. to move on to number three, let's pause, am I right? You're about to move on to number three, yeah, okay, great, I notice, okay, so that's possible again, because this is what I you're saying, juicy stuff, so you just like it. I quickly said yes, because we are wasting a lot of money on unconscious training. Well, that's not obvious, let's look at that further because there are still many companies that believe in unconscious bias training.

Can you explain a little more, break down some of the science on why? you think the money would be better spent elsewhere, so I think you should first know that of course there is variability in the type of training that is offered, so as to how effective these interventions are, my main objection is that there are many of these interventions. Interventions focus on making the unconscious conscious and my argument here is that most biases are not even unconscious, they are actually conscious and many problematic biases are conscious. In fact, you can create more problems than you are solving by making people aware of the problem. fact that I don't know that they are prejudiced against women, blacks, Hispanics, all people or unattractive people, yes I still trust my intuition during an interview and all I think is that I shouldn't think that the person in front If I'm Hispanic Latino or female I'll just think about that and have trouble focusing on everything else and there's certainly no evidence that even eliminating that bias will make me an objective evaluator of that person's potential versus I don't know. science-based assessments or some data-driven interventions.

Having said that you know, my main objection is not that the training might not work, but that the same companies, on the one hand, are spending money on those interventions and then, on the other hand, they say we hire. As for cultural fit, you know they're almost incompatible because if you're going to select people who are like everyone else in your company, that's a very conscious bias driving your talent identification efforts. I see that I see that you focus more on the conscious values ​​and decision that we are making a selection criterion, so yes, then it seems that you have less faith that we can so easily, in a two-hour unconscious bias session or a full day, convert the unconscious into consciousness, yes, that's for sure, that's for sure.

You know, come here. I'll show you some slides. Research from the 70s or 80s on IITs etc., which, as you know, there are still some interesting studies there and there is still a lot of discussion about how effective they are and also what. it happens once you find out what the IIT IIT tells you correctly, so I would do the Harvard implicit associations sexism test and you are sexist, well it's interesting, yes, in favor of the women you know compared to the men, which is something new, so I might make sense considering this book that you've written, yes, you know, and for example, whathappens next, so that's the important thing, how do I address that bias once it's conscious, but anyway I think if you're doing the training and then at the same time you're saying here that we basically want people who are like everyone else. , you're not going to create an inclusive culture that accepts people who look different, by the way, also if companies really think they're going to address their diversity and inclusion issues by appointing a minority person as chief diversity offering officer and that it's all, it's not very serious, well that's me, many companies are doing exactly that and you know, and I and I think the intention might be fine, but very similar to the Linnaean argument or similar quotas often They are counterproductive because those in charge, you know, the elite are generally men, assume that these measures are breaking or reducing a meritocratic order that, in their opinion, is in force because they know that no one is questioning the fact that there is no meritocracy. right now really very interesting, so let's move on to the third question, okay, the third one would eliminate what kind of addresses the second part of the question, which is, not just how do we get better leaders. but also how do we get more women into leadership positions and what I actually argue is that the solution is the same to achieve both, so the third is not making it easier for competent women to become leaders, making it harder for

incompetent

men. to become leaders they are occupying many jobs and roles, a good goal for competent women or competent people in general, but at this stage, you know, the main problem is that incompetent men are overrepresented in leadership roles, so In a way, I argue that the main implication for gender diversity policies or interventions is that the best gender diversity intervention is to focus on talent rather than gender.

If you really evaluate talent and potential well and select leaders based on their talent and potential, I would do it. Not only would we end up with more women in leadership positions, but we would probably end up with slightly more women than men in leadership roles, which would actually lead us to think about affirmative action policies to help men reach roles. of leadership, so if anything it would be a reverse case to what we have now and that argument sometimes bothers even feminists who think, oh, what you're saying is you know it's all about the business case and the return on investment (ROI) and that it is not important to promote social justice or equity at all, you know, I adhere to the cause of social justice and social equity, but I also say that most corporations are not in this to improve social justice and social equity and its role in the world is not to reduce inequalities.

So if you're planning to persuade them, using that argument is not going to work and could backfire because they think we're doing it because it's an altruistic reason which means there can't be a business case and it's not meritocratic. The argument is, look, this is the business case and that, by the way, would also solve the social justice issue, but we're just doing this to make it more effective, okay, so you don't have to be a fan of quotas or the quality of the result. like mandating that we have to hire 50% women to do % men, you are more in line with similar things that will be resolved fairly and equitably if we focus on talent and reduce our biases, it is more along the lines of what you're saying, yes, absolutely and I think you know, use the right words because I'm not a fan of quotas, but at the same time you know I'm not against them so if there's no other way , can.

To persuade organizations to be more meritocratic than good, let's use kotas, but I think there is a better way which is to select talent and if you make the selection in a gender-blind manner and focus on talent, the problem solves itself, so let's talk. about singing talent because unfortunately I couldn't get you on the psychology podcast to talk about your previous book, the delusion of talent, so let's try to integrate that a little bit into this discussion to see a connection between that book and your current book and this , you know, the main argument of your previous book was that we really need to rely more on objective data, that is, not on our intuition that can guide us to Orien and you have made a similar argument today about how we should override our intuitions in many cases or just trusting our instincts as you put it, so it seems like this book is some kind of continuation, it's probably one of the ones you see, that's right, yes, that's right, in fact, I might even see that there are a trilogy because before G, yeah, I mean, obviously it's not the same as Star Wars or another one that probably isn't even a trilogy, but yeah, yeah, it's not Back to the Future, but there's still three and you know the first one It is a book about how to trust. in general it is overrated, we overvalue ourselves and others and that was a generic book, so the illusion of talent is that we are not very good at evaluating talent in the context of jobs, it works and most organizations act accordingly. heard and people do not receive useful feedback. to understand what they are good at, what they are, where they can be most valuable, etc., and this one combines both of those things, but takes the discussion to the leadership realm and adds, you know, injecting the gender variable so that you know that you have completely right. and in the talent delusion, I think the main point was that, to some extent, you know everyone, if you put them in a place where their attitudes, interests and skills are in the right place, they will be high performers, okay , But in this moment.

That doesn't happen very often because we basically use the wrong criteria and the wrong tools to determine what people are good at. That was a division of talent. Yes, I could see the connections between the three, but getting even further away from everyone. Three, what would you say is like a key thread of your entire life? If you were a leader of individual differences in the workplace. I don't know what you would see mmm. That's an interesting question. You know what I mean? What would you think is the main one? One, this is complicated, well I just said it on the broadest level.

I see that you are very interested in individual differences, personality, yes, and the workplace, but now it could also be that you have extended this to group differences, but differences, right? I know, because even when I talk about group differences, it's just a high level of analysis, it's a consequence of individual differences. You also know that's pretty well grouped out there, so ultimately you know that although I'm very focused on what's happening in the workplace and in business environments and people's kind of careers. You're right. I think my main interest is ultimately using science and applying it to understand or decode the most individual level of analysis of what people are like.

The tradition of individual differences or differential psychology is trying to understand what the typical or default end of things is for people, which doesn't mean that they won't change at some point, you know, from one situation to another, true, yes, yes, so I wonder what has happened. Has the reaction to your book been, I mean, I hope it hasn't been purely stereotypical in the sense that women applaud you and love you and when I say oh Tomas, I want to hug you, you know, and all the men like the hate. your guts you know how to sell us how I hope it wasn't just that stereotype please tell me it's not just in the reaction yes, you know, I think you're right, it wasn't just a doubt and it's not the only reaction, but let's say that Maybe thirty percent is that, yeah, there's some of that, yeah, that's for sure, I think the title is kind of a double-edged sword, you know, or a mixed blessing, it definitely makes people pay attention. but it also prevents people in some cases from reading the book and having opinions about it, you know, the reactions suggest that they haven't actually read the book, yes, but they have opinions about the title that may be, you know.

The title can be polarizing in some ways, so I'm going to talk about the remaining third, those who are the most promising, most rational, and at least most rewarding reaction, which is always when people reframe certain misconceptions and maybe agree. okay, you know. What you're arguing is that, for example, we're focusing less on the qualities that make people more effective as leaders and on the things that we all actually assume because if you're educated and liberal and you know experienced professional people, what is the number? competency or ingredient of leadership potential, the most common answer will be confidence, you know, just helping them reframe that is important and then I think the one that has probably made me happiest is the people who work in the diversity space and inclusion. and maybe for some reason, a role job or part of their occupations trying to promote gender equality, they've often said, oh, you know, this is a different argument.

Now I can see how some of the things we have taken for granted might not be. It just doesn't help, but it's actually counterproductive, you know, so I think the opportunity, if anything, is that we've entered. I think there's one side in discussions about diversity, gender diversity and equality where the conversation is a little more mature, more rational, more evidence-based and where organizations are moving from pretending they care to carrying out yes and again You know, I see a lot of people actually agreeing with that and then I see some people saying, "You know, there's so much accumulation of men these days that you know it can lead one to think that there was something good about men, You know, yeah, I think that certainly, you know, there's never been a worse time in history to be a man, you know, but at the same time, it's still much better to be born a man than a woman anywhere in the world, including Scandinavia, by the way, so I'm not saying that the solution to the historical injustice of the past would be to reverse it and make the world you know too challenging for men and too easy for women, but even if that happened, it could be argue that it's not the most immoral scenario given how hard it's been for the last few hundred years, at least for women, and how unfairly easy it's been for men, so I'm not advocating for that, but if that happened so I can't necessarily sympathize and say oh poor man, you know, yes, I hear you say it, you know, I think the important thing is to keep the conversation open and the mutual understanding between both sexes and both genders and Yes, I think you have really contributed in a way important to this ongoing cultural war, but it is also a recognition, a masculine recognition.

You know that men are starting to be responsible for much of their bad behavior and you know that it is undeniable that there are many things. From bad behavior among men there is also bad behavior among women, right, and I think you know the interesting type of more geeky and theoretical or even philosophical equipment that underpins this or some of these topics about which I know you have researched and written a lot. . Is that kind of intersection or tension between cultural evolution and biological evolution? You know how they see the degree of winning and one emerging because of the other and the extent to which they are in tension and one tries to undermine the other, so I think that's very Certainly it's interesting the fact that yes, you know there is something that has always been and will continue to be, but at the same time, today there are enormous cultural differences between different places that show that culture can do a lot to erode, suppress or counteract some of these biological factors.

The factors that can and that seems to be the focus of your book, what can we do as a culture to have a more equitable workplace that also has more competent people steering the ship? exactly exactly anything that, ultimately, men have always had and for men. I mean humanity, so the men and women here, the kind humanity, yes, they found ways to transcend their own biology and nature by creating tools and machines and technology that really also advance the species and that's what's in it. the center of much of the conversation about technology and artificial intelligence today.

Also, even if we don't become Android soon, hopefully it won't be okay. I don't know, maybe I would say that it would actually help us in many ways, but you don't have to get it. You must assure your audience that you are. a human and I am a human and also remember that none of us are incompetent men, that's important to say, oh it's very kind of you to think that I'm a competent man, well I did my best and I try to be better every day. I know and I think that's the best we can do, sure, trying ishalf the battle.

Well, what's the other half of the battle? Well, we're getting there, but I think a lot of the problems and this is the serious topic that fascinates. If you look you know another literature which is the coaching and leadership development literature which shows very clearly that some interventions are more effective than others, yes that will always be the case and the main determinant or driver of whether an intervention is effective is no. It's the coach, it's not the methodology, it's the coachee, right, the old joke in psychology is how many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb, as long as the light bulb really wants to change, you know, can people change?

Yes, but mostly they don't. because they don't try, you know, or they don't get the right feedback or they're happy where they are, so I would say the paradox in the world of coaching is that it works with those who need it least because there are people who were already curious, self-critical and eager to change and on the contrary those who do not have any of these attributes are incapable of being trained and are the ones who need it the most and are the ones at the top, yes and we will not give a specific answer. examples that yes can be very, very common, yes, yes, yes, or you know, I mean, I think it's fair to say that this is a fairly common characteristic in many, if not most, heads of state, do you know?

TRUE? They say you know 70 percent of the world is run by people who don't lack confidence and charisma, but they're not very humble, not very curious, not very coachable, and maybe things are better than they were. They were, but I would say no, they could also be much better and the countries that are run well and where people are happier, prosper and improve tend to be run by more competent and humble people. I really like that, so I want to ask you one last question, err, unless there's something else you want to talk about, but you know there's an old question.

I'm going to ask you: do you good guys finish last? This is, you know, sometimes I think it's the right answer. It does not have to be this way. Actually, yes. My book would focus on the fact that they do it right, because even though I do the right thing. the case for more women in leadership I also argue for the need for kinder men in leadership. I think we need more good guys to fill leadership roles and right now, when you often prove that you are a good guy, you know you are overlooked or ignored. leadership roles, yes, kindly, discriminated and exactly, absolutely, that's why I leave that point in the book, so for the purposes of our conversation, I will say yes, but it doesn't have to be in one case, oh no, It should be the other way around. especially because, as a leader, you are responsible for the well-being, performance, success and faith of your team, your followers, your subordinates, so they will benefit much more if you are a nice guy than if you are unpleasant. period yes, I wish more people would listen to this podcast episode and be in positions of leadership or be able to elect leaders and I hope they choose more wisely based absolutely on their work and I think you know the men who have expressed positive things. comments and opinions on the book and also more likely to mentor and support the female case, yes, I often say look, I mean, I myself am disadvantaged or disabled at work because I display some of these feminine characteristics, absolutely, yes, amazing, thank you so much for chatting with you, Tomas, and I wish you all the best in this. important research program thank you very much Scott, thanks for listening to the psychology podcast.

I hope you enjoyed this episode if you want to react in some way to something you heard. I invite you to join the discussion on the psychology.com podcast. the psychology podcast.com also add a rating and review of the psychology podcast on iTunes thank you for being a big supporter of the podcast and tune in next time to learn more about the behavior and creativity of the mind, the brain.