I recently read “Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders? (and how to fix it)” by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic. Here I summarise the key messages from the book, and share the author’s suggestions about what can be done to address this issue. I’ve also added a few of my own thoughts.
1. Redefine Leadership Criteria
- There is still too much focus within recruitment processes on confidence as a desirable (appointable) quality, with insufficient emphasis on capability. Given the importance of interpersonal qualities, hiring criteria should focus on these. More women than men possess emotional intelligence, integrity, humility, self-awareness, and coaching ability. All qualities that support team flourishing and success.
- Rather than focusing on subjective assessments, which are prone to gender bias, use objective performance metrics.
My thoughts
I would go one step further. Why not share the interview questions with candidates ahead of the job interview? This would enable in-depth preparation and would enable capable candidates to shine, by demonstrating their capabilities. It would more quickly become apparent which candidates had undertaken thorough research and preparation. This is a better indication of motivation than confident bluster.
2. Implement Blind Recruitment
- Remove identifying information from CVs and applications to reduce gender bias.
- Standardise competency-based questions and put the issue of cultural fit to one side.
My thoughts
I would suggest discussing the risk for potential bias with the panel at the outset of the process. When scoring candidates, focus on capability not confidence. Push overly-confident candidates for details. Keep the focus on competency and facts.
3. Ensure Transparent Promotion Practices
- Define your promotion criteria and communicate these openly. Make sure you’re not inadvertently making it harder for women to achieve these.
- Track and publish diversity and pay equity metrics, holding leaders accountable for progress.
My thoughts:
Data are often used as a tick box activity with little in the way of discussion and decisions on how the metrics can be improved. It’s often harder for women, especially in academic roles, to take part in activities that are career- enhancing as opposed to career-limiting. How many of your female staff are spending time engaged in committee work? On working groups of one sort or another? While these activities need to be supported, what are your male staff involved in? For managers, it’s important that all staff have opportunities for development so they can meet promotion criteria. Ensure equity of distribution of work that is required rather than desired. Women are hardwired to be helpful and may volunteer for more non-promotable activities than men. Men therefore often end up with more time for research-related and profile-raising activities.
4. Address Workplace Culture
- Challenge “always-on” work expectations. Ensure all leaders embrace and support this.
- Normalise and support flexible working arrangements for everyone—not just women.
My thoughts:
Departments often have their own subtle sub-culture; unwritten rules and assumptions about what’s expected. Check that there is genuine transparency, not just lip service being paid.
5. Train to Combat Bias—But Go Beyond Training
- Provide unconscious bias training for all involved in hiring and promotions.
- Combine training with systemic changes to processes and include accountability measures.
My thoughts:
You can’t be what you can’t see. What programmes are in place to encourage more women to apply for promotional posts? How does your organisation actively support the best people into leadership roles?
6. Improve Selection Methods to Filter Out Incompetence
These recommendations help prevent overconfident but incompetent candidates (often men) from dominating leadership pools, making space for more competent women:
- Deploy structured behavioural interviews that probe ethical judgment, emotional responses, and learning from failure
- Include multi-interviewer panels across levels to assess consistency
- Conduct deep reference checks
- Use real-world assessments to evaluate problem-solving skills and humility in admitting knowledge gaps
- Evaluate candidates in team-based settings to observe collaboration and ego management
- Watch for red flags like excessive charm, blame-shifting, and disrespect to support staff
- Implement validated psychological assessment tools to detect traits linked to poor leadership (e.g., narcissism, lack of empathy)
My thoughts:
I’ve lost count of the number of male leaders who are high on confidence, charm and charisma. Very often these same leaders, who manage to pull the wool over the eyes of those who make the hiring decisions are full of hot air, but low on substance. Quick to take credit for others’ work, lacking the necessary understanding or details for their area of work, frequently away from their teams undertaking ‘important’ profile-raising work. These people often don’t stay long in roles- by which time they’ve moved on, leaving untold collateral damage. They often have little or no interest in their own staff, seeking out instead those they feel will benefit them in their next career move. All to often, they leave behind them staff who have been marginalised, bullied, ground down or overlooked.
Do your homework. Seek out informal references. Formal reference requests rarely provide useful or detailed information as there are legal constraints on what is shared. This will help minimise the risk of making dreadful (and costly) hiring decisions.
7. Support Individual Women’s Career Growth
- Encourage women to build confidence through skill development and feedback
- Support them to find sponsors, not just mentors
- Teach strategic networking focused on authentic connections
- Show how to document and communicate achievements without triggering backlash
If the steps outlined above are implemented, the author says there should be no need for quotas. The most talented people would simply be appointed, which would naturally lead to an increase in women in leadership roles.
My thoughts:
The changes proposed by the author aim to fix systemic issues that prevent competent women from rising to leadership roles and ensure leadership selection is based on character, competence, and collaboration—not just self-promotion.
What suggestions do you have, that could lead to genuine improvements in the quality of those in leadership roles?