I can’t think of single textbook on leadership that says it.
MBA programs certainly don’t: it would be against their interests. And it would
be the kiss of death for consultants to provide advice to the effect. An
article in Forbes said so in 2013 but it wasn’t quite what needed to be said.
It’s an elephant that sits there, in the room at performance review time, at
the interview and when promotions are dished out. So I will, say it, at the
risk of becoming really unpopular.
There are people, probably quite a few of them, who should
not be allowed to be in leadership/management positions.
Personality traits and cognitive schemas are two aspects of
the human condition that underpin a good chunk of our behaviour, if not most of
it. They are both very resilient and are unlikely to change very much except in
the face of a relatively powerful experience with a strong emotional component.
This is especially true if the trait is strong and the cognitive schema well
established. Weaker traits and schema may change with experience.
Most people are aware of personality traits and have
probably completed a DISC profile or an MBTI at some stage of their working
life. These are great tests and useful. However, the Big 5 personality traits
are the only ones recognised by psychologists to consistently predict behaviour,
based on an enormous body of research. It is not surprising, but disappointing
to see some very strange personality tests used by some consultants and described
in books, that would be about as useful as a horoscope. But, like a horoscope
they give people something to talk about even if they not very relevant to real
life.
Cognitive schemas are values, attitudes and beliefs: our
dogmas and holy cows. These are learned but are powerful predictors of
behaviour. There is a barrow load of research to show that people are more
likely to act on their schemas than on facts if the latter contradict the
former. Our schemas are at the heart of our decision-making.
It goes without saying that people who like to use bullying
tactics should be out of the leadership frame. However, bullying still seems to
be a popular pastime in many workplaces, particularly the public sector,
education and health. But none are immune from the problem. Of course bullying
is illegal in most western economies. Strangely, though, bullies still seem to
survive despite it having serious consequences to employee engagement and
subsequent poor performance and quality. That other flaw in personality, the
psychopath, also manages to thrive in organisations largely due to guile and
the inability of people to spot them until it’s too late. But these are
extremes and there is a much more common problem with personality and
management/leadership.
Using the Big 5, it is my view that people will have trouble
being a leader/manager if they are low on Openness to Experience (willingness
to try something new), very high on Conscientiousness (need to plan, organise and
control-inflexible), and low on Stability (highly anxious). Similarly people
will have difficulty if they are low on empathy, low on optimism, have high
control needs, have trouble self-reflecting and are low on trust.
Any one of these predilections is likely to lead to problems
being a leader or manager. A combination of them is likely to be lethal.
Most people in an organisation know who the capable
managers/leaders are and who are the misfits. But apart from whispers in the
tea-room and at the annual Christmas party many organisations (leaders of) do
not act. Many organisations don't consider these characteristics when they
recruit or promote. And spare me the nonsense about being able to weed out
misfits at interview. It is all too easy to pull the wool over the eyes of an
interview panel. Ask any psychopath!
Of course there’s not a profile of a perfect manager/leader
and neither should there be. Different people make the world go round and
certainly make it a more interesting place. But I wouldn’t allow a surgeon with
low attention to detail operate on me, or a lawyer who annoys the hell out of
judges with her abrasiveness to represent me in court. You wouldn't be keen on
having an accountant who is low on Conscientiousness. Well you shouldn’t. My
psychologist needs to be high on empathy.
We need to apply the same standards to management and
leadership. Until we do management can hardly call itself a profession given
anyone seems to be able to be lifted to the position with minimal scrutiny.
Mostly people are recruited to be managers/leaders because they are good at
their profession.
Sorry, but the abilities needed to fly an aircraft, build a
bridge or teach a classroom of children are not the same that we need to
manage/lead people.
