FINALLY! Research proves what I\’ve been banging on about for decades! 👨🎓 𝗪𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴.
This article by @Business Insider is behind a paywall, so unless you\’re a subscriber, you won\’t be able to read it. If you are a subscriber do read it – it\’s great. But for those who are not, let me summarize.
Research for @The National Bureau of Economic Research by very notable names from extremely notable universities using very clever experiments found that in a contest between teams who were supervised by those participants that:
🔹 Wanted to supervise the most,
🔹 Were the highest individual performers,
🔹 Were randomly selected
🔹 Were assessed on their ability to manage
The teams supervised by the \’self-promoters\’ performed worse than the teams supervised by people selected at random.
The teams supervised by people who were high individual performers fared only slightly better than the teams supervised by those picked at random.
The best performing teams were those (surprise, surprise) that were supervised by people assessed on their ability to manage – regardless of their will or individual skills as a sole contributor.
Here are some quotes…
\”Self-promotion, as it happens, is one of the primary ways companies select managers in real life. Employees who want a bigger title and more responsibility express their interest in moving up the corporate ladder and do the requisite lobbying to clinch the role. The louder you are about your ambitions, the more likely you are to realize them.
But the study found that 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝗹𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘆. And therein lies an irony at the very heart of corporate life: The people who most want to become managers end up being bad managers.
To understand why, the researchers looked at the traits of the people who were eager to be in charge. These self-promoters, as the study called them, turned out to be pretty full of themselves. They tended to overestimate their ability to perceive other people\’s emotions — a key component of good management. And the more extroverted they said they were and the more highly they rated their own political skills, the worse the teams they led performed.\”
And my favorite 🥰 quote of the article, \”And in what will come as a surprise to absolutely no one, self-promoters in the study tended to be male. It\’s the Dunning-Kruger effect for management: 𝗜𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮, 𝗳𝗲𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗻.\” 🤦🏼♀️
\”But in the study, teams overseen by supervisors who did well as workers performed only slightly better than those overseen by lottery-selected managers. That still leaves a lot of potential productivity on the table.\”
The teams that did the best in their experiments were….🥁 drum roll please…those who were supervised by people who passed a simple test designed to assess their ability to manage people (regardless of how well they performed as an individual contributor).
\”What did much better at predicting good managers was intelligence, as measured by a common IQ test. And what did best of all was measuring a manager\’s competence at decision-making. Researchers administered a quick test, which the Harvard Skills Lab has made available online, to measure how a potential manager would allocate resources.
The best managers, it turns out, are those who are actually good at one of the primary responsibilities of a manager — assigning the right projects to the right people.
🙄 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗮 𝗻𝗼-𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗿 — 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲 — 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘂𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆, 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀𝗻\’𝘁. 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲, 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗱𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗮𝘀𝗸𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆\’𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺. \”𝗜𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗯𝘃𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀,\” 𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀. \”𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗻\’𝘁 𝗱𝗼 𝗶𝘁.\”
Here is the Business Insider article:
And here is the link to the original research.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w32699
