I always wonder, when people make such claims, if it is true.
So I am upvoting this for the simple reason that she spent so much time going over the research that demonstrates that humble leaders are more effective.
edit: p.s. alternative theory of why we choose Charisma over Consensus. Consensus minded people tend to pick many different leaders whereas the charisma influenced people, even though they are in the minority tend to end up picking the single leader who displays the most charisma (in the narrow sense of negative, narcissistic and authoritarian charisma defined in the article).
I believe you're referring to this quote from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy—
>> To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
The US military tries to sort out the loudmouths from the competent officers. They don't always succeed, but there's an organized process.
China's leadership tends to be promoted step by step. Read Li Keqiang's resume.[1] Promotions are faster for the well connected (the "princelings"), but leaders go through a lot of jobs on the way up.
If you look back at the source for the "Humble People Make the Best Leaders" source, it's a little less straight forward than that. It's not about humble leaders, it's mainly a study about how altruistic leaders make their employees feel:
Ambiguous indeed. These concepts are so slippery because "humility" in the technical sense used in the research article is not necessarily the same "humility" as used in the vernacular. Nobody usually cares, but in this case I think the technical "humility" is a name given to a murky soup of psychometric attributes.
"At the outbreak of the Civil War, Grant wanted back in the Army, but the Army wasn’t interested. His reputation as a drunkard preceded him. Eventually they did offer him a unit to lead, one nobody else wanted. The 21st Illinois Artillery was one of the rowdiest, least disciplined, and most troubled units in the Union Army. When Grant took command on 14 June 1861, the restless men were only two weeks from the end of their enlistment. They couldn’t wait to go home. Then they met Grant. At the end of June, nearly every man signed up for another three years. “We knew we had the best commander and the best regiment in the State,” remarked one of them.
Grant turned the unit around by demonstrating a leadership style borrowed from Zachary Taylor in the Mexican-American War, marked by thoughtfulness, decisiveness, simple orders, and—above all—humility. This, his soldiers admired most of all. Grant shunned ostentation, flamboyance, and even a commander’s uniform. He dressed like his men did and looked “plain as an old shoe,” according to one Army doctor."
It seems like people tend to listen to the loudest speakers first -- everybody else is forced to play keep up. Bla bla bla, something about portraying authority.
Brain's not on point for elucidating further. If somebody else understands or agrees and cares to take the mantle, I'd appreciate it.
So true. And for a good laugh (because this seems to be so true) here's a book many narcissistic leaders must have read and employ (even though it's suppose to be satire/comedic): 100 Tricks to Appear Smart in Meetings: How to Get By Without Even Trying
There's a wire about being sensed by lots of persons. Be it loud, or up on stage ..
As if it's so easy to get shut down, whenever someone manages to stay there, it's a strong signal for the group. A sign of correct interpretation above each everyone and thus someone to follow ?
I think this is pretty much the thesis statement of "The Road to Character". Another interesting insight I am picking up from that book is that the best leaders are really the ones who know how to identify and pick the "Best Leaders". While those who are humble and reserved do a great job of actually doing the work of leadership, the absolute best leaders don't actually have those same virtues, but they recognize the quality and enable humble people to do good work.
Perhaps also because they tend make more money in the short term by sacrificing the long term? Sadly, a practice which aligns with the rest of modern society...
So I am upvoting this for the simple reason that she spent so much time going over the research that demonstrates that humble leaders are more effective.
edit: p.s. alternative theory of why we choose Charisma over Consensus. Consensus minded people tend to pick many different leaders whereas the charisma influenced people, even though they are in the minority tend to end up picking the single leader who displays the most charisma (in the narrow sense of negative, narcissistic and authoritarian charisma defined in the article).