有魅力的領導人是「災難」 ？背後４缺點
2012-11-20
Web only
作者：吳凱琳編譯
圖片來源：劉國泰
從美國總統大選至今，關於領導人的各種話題，仍延燒不斷。若仔細分析，事實上許多領導問題，終歸兩個字：「魅力」。
根據實證研究結果，「魅力」確實是成功領導的重要因素之一，但是，魅力也可能成為毒藥，傷害團隊。
《哈佛商業評論》網站刊登了一篇英國倫敦大學學院心理學教授湯瑪斯．查莫洛-普雷穆茲克（Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic）的文章，指出「魅力」的4大負面影響：
1.魅力會影響理性判斷：如果要影響別人，通常有3種方式：強迫、說理、魅力。有魅力的人通常是藉由自己的個人魅力、而不是去說服他人。然而，一旦有一天失去了魅力，便傾向於用強迫的方式要對方接受。
2.魅力會上癮：有魅力的人會沈迷於自身的個人魅力，一心一意只想著如何被更多人喜歡，反而忘了真正重要的工作表現，即使其他人對他的美好印象已逐漸褪色。就好比前英國首相湯尼．布萊恩（Tony Blair）總認為入侵伊拉克是道德上的勝利，但事實上英國人民並不這麼想。
3.有魅力的人通常具有負面性格：許 多俱有負面性格的人確實非常有個人魅力，原因就在於他們必須用個人魅力掩飾負面性格。不論是在政治界或企業界，許多領導人靠著自我中心、欺騙、操控、自私 等行為，才搶佔到領導人的位置，但這些行為也正是日後造成他們管理失敗的原因，旗下爆發竊聽醜聞的新聞集團總裁梅鐸（Rupert Murdoch）便是一例。
4.魅力會導致集體自戀：所謂志同道合，有魅力的領導人自會吸引一群價值觀與他相近的人，但也因此形成強烈的排他性，對於與自己價值觀不同的人，採取完全反對的態度，造成意見不同的人群之間的強烈敵意，最終反而導致團體的分裂。（吳凱琳編譯）
【新聞來源】Harvard Business Review-The Dark Side of Charisma
《哈佛商業評論》網站刊登了一篇英國倫敦大學學院心理學教授湯瑪斯．查莫洛-普雷穆茲克（Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic）的文章，指出「魅力」的4大負面影響：
1.魅力會影響理性判斷：如果要影響別人，通常有3種方式：強迫、說理、魅力。有魅力的人通常是藉由自己的個人魅力、而不是去說服他人。然而，一旦有一天失去了魅力，便傾向於用強迫的方式要對方接受。
2.魅力會上癮：有魅力的人會沈迷於自身的個人魅力，一心一意只想著如何被更多人喜歡，反而忘了真正重要的工作表現，即使其他人對他的美好印象已逐漸褪色。就好比前英國首相湯尼．布萊恩（Tony Blair）總認為入侵伊拉克是道德上的勝利，但事實上英國人民並不這麼想。
3.有魅力的人通常具有負面性格：許 多俱有負面性格的人確實非常有個人魅力，原因就在於他們必須用個人魅力掩飾負面性格。不論是在政治界或企業界，許多領導人靠著自我中心、欺騙、操控、自私 等行為，才搶佔到領導人的位置，但這些行為也正是日後造成他們管理失敗的原因，旗下爆發竊聽醜聞的新聞集團總裁梅鐸（Rupert Murdoch）便是一例。
4.魅力會導致集體自戀：所謂志同道合，有魅力的領導人自會吸引一群價值觀與他相近的人，但也因此形成強烈的排他性，對於與自己價值觀不同的人，採取完全反對的態度，造成意見不同的人群之間的強烈敵意，最終反而導致團體的分裂。（吳凱琳編譯）
【新聞來源】Harvard Business Review-The Dark Side of Charisma
The Dark Side of Charisma
Most people think charisma is as vital to leadership
as it is to rock stars or TV presenters and, unfortunately, they are
right. In the era of multimedia politics, leadership is commonly
downgraded to just another form of entertainment and charisma is indispensable
for keeping the audience engaged. However, the short-term benefits of
charisma are often neutralized by its long-term consequences. In fact,
there are big reasons for resisting charisma:
1. Charisma dilutes judgment: There are only three ways to influence others: force, reason, or charm. Whereas force and reason are rational (even when we are "forced" to do something, we obey for a good reason) charm is not. Charm is based on emotional manipulation and, as such, it has the ability to trump any rational assessment and bias our views. Charismatic leaders influence by charm rather than reason and when they run out of charm they tend to revert to force (think Jim Jones, Christina Fernandez de Kirchner, or your favorite brutal dictator).
2. Charisma is addictive: Leaders capable of charming their followers become addicted to their love. After the initial honeymoon effect is over, they continue to crave high approval ratings, which distracts them from their actual goals. Followers, on the other hand, become addicted to the leader's charisma, reinforcing displays of populism and perceiving unpopular decisions as deal-breakers. The result is a reciprocal dependence that encourages both parts to distort reality in order to prolong their "high." Typically, charismatic leaders will remain deluded even after their followers have woken up. Tony Blair will forever think that the invasion of Iraq was a moral triumph, and Saddam Hussein (who relied on charisma for years) was absolutely convinced that he had served his country with dignity and integrity. But ask most people in Britain or Iraq what they think, and you will hear a very different story.
3. Charisma disguises psychopaths: Although you don't have to be a psychopath to be charismatic, many psychopaths are charming, and the main reason for this is that their charm hides their antisocial tendencies, so they manage to get away with it. Egocentricity, deceit, manipulativeness, and selfishness are key career advancers in both politics and management, and many leaders rise to the top motivated by their own problems with authority. Although being in charge is a good antidote to having a boss, if you cannot be managed you can probably not manage others either — this is why Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump spent very little time working for others, but too much time managing others.
4. Charisma fosters collective narcissism: If you think Barack Obama is charismatic try asking the average Republican. People are charmed by others only when they share their core values and principles. In line, charisma facilitates ideological self-enhancement: our adoration for someone who expresses our own beliefs (usually better than we are capable of doing ourselves) is a socially acceptable way to love and flatter, not only ourselves, but also our "tribe" (e.g., Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, etc.). In other words, we would not find someone charismatic if their vision didn't align with ours, so the only transformation charismatic leaders can attain is to unite their followers by turning each of them into a more radical version of themselves: the only way of being fully committed to a cause is to be fully opposed to another.
Despite these dangers, the dark side of charm is commonly overlooked. Politics is in bad need of a charisma detox, especially in the Western world. Here are three simple recommendations for upgrading to a more rational and sterilized leadership model, even if it makes poor tv and attracts very few YouTube hits (think Angela Merkel rather than Silvio Berlusconi):
1. Select leaders using scientifically validated assessment tools, instead of relying on "chemistry" or intuition. For example, narcissists tend to perform well on interviews and confidence displays are often mistaken by competence. Conversely, robust psychometric tests will identify character flaws in aspiring leaders and provide a reliable estimate of their likelihood of derailing — unlike humans, tests are immune to charm.
2. Limit politicians' media exposure and airtime; it is distracting and makes charismatic candidates look more competent than they actually are. Of course, I'm not proposing that we limit freedom of speech or regulate press coverage, but content could be curated to provide a more factual and educational account of elections. There is a fundamental difference between a Hollywood actor and a leader, but the modern image of a politician conceals it. Furthermore, this image fuels popular stereotypes about leaders in general, which explains why The Campaign (with Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis) is almost too realistic to be funny.
3. Look for hidden talent — which means avoiding the charisma trap. There is a universal management paradox whereby the people most likely to climb the organizational ladder do so because (rather than in spite) of character traits that impair their performance as leaders. Although it over 20 years since this paradox was first noted, we are still reluctant to look for leadership potential beyond the people who self-nominate for the role — mostly by bullying and stepping on others. This is one of the principal reasons for the low representation of female leaders in senior political or corporate roles; it also explains why the few women who managed to break through the glass ceiling exhibit more aggressive, ruthless, and pathologically ambitious personalities than their male counterparts (think Marissa Mayer or Margaret Thatcher).
In brief, charisma distracts and destructs. Technology and science have enabled us to systematize many serendipitous practices (e.g., shopping, marketing, relationships, hiring, etc.). A more mature and evolved version of politics will require a charisma detox — leadership is not a game.
1. Charisma dilutes judgment: There are only three ways to influence others: force, reason, or charm. Whereas force and reason are rational (even when we are "forced" to do something, we obey for a good reason) charm is not. Charm is based on emotional manipulation and, as such, it has the ability to trump any rational assessment and bias our views. Charismatic leaders influence by charm rather than reason and when they run out of charm they tend to revert to force (think Jim Jones, Christina Fernandez de Kirchner, or your favorite brutal dictator).
2. Charisma is addictive: Leaders capable of charming their followers become addicted to their love. After the initial honeymoon effect is over, they continue to crave high approval ratings, which distracts them from their actual goals. Followers, on the other hand, become addicted to the leader's charisma, reinforcing displays of populism and perceiving unpopular decisions as deal-breakers. The result is a reciprocal dependence that encourages both parts to distort reality in order to prolong their "high." Typically, charismatic leaders will remain deluded even after their followers have woken up. Tony Blair will forever think that the invasion of Iraq was a moral triumph, and Saddam Hussein (who relied on charisma for years) was absolutely convinced that he had served his country with dignity and integrity. But ask most people in Britain or Iraq what they think, and you will hear a very different story.
3. Charisma disguises psychopaths: Although you don't have to be a psychopath to be charismatic, many psychopaths are charming, and the main reason for this is that their charm hides their antisocial tendencies, so they manage to get away with it. Egocentricity, deceit, manipulativeness, and selfishness are key career advancers in both politics and management, and many leaders rise to the top motivated by their own problems with authority. Although being in charge is a good antidote to having a boss, if you cannot be managed you can probably not manage others either — this is why Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump spent very little time working for others, but too much time managing others.
4. Charisma fosters collective narcissism: If you think Barack Obama is charismatic try asking the average Republican. People are charmed by others only when they share their core values and principles. In line, charisma facilitates ideological self-enhancement: our adoration for someone who expresses our own beliefs (usually better than we are capable of doing ourselves) is a socially acceptable way to love and flatter, not only ourselves, but also our "tribe" (e.g., Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, etc.). In other words, we would not find someone charismatic if their vision didn't align with ours, so the only transformation charismatic leaders can attain is to unite their followers by turning each of them into a more radical version of themselves: the only way of being fully committed to a cause is to be fully opposed to another.
Despite these dangers, the dark side of charm is commonly overlooked. Politics is in bad need of a charisma detox, especially in the Western world. Here are three simple recommendations for upgrading to a more rational and sterilized leadership model, even if it makes poor tv and attracts very few YouTube hits (think Angela Merkel rather than Silvio Berlusconi):
1. Select leaders using scientifically validated assessment tools, instead of relying on "chemistry" or intuition. For example, narcissists tend to perform well on interviews and confidence displays are often mistaken by competence. Conversely, robust psychometric tests will identify character flaws in aspiring leaders and provide a reliable estimate of their likelihood of derailing — unlike humans, tests are immune to charm.
2. Limit politicians' media exposure and airtime; it is distracting and makes charismatic candidates look more competent than they actually are. Of course, I'm not proposing that we limit freedom of speech or regulate press coverage, but content could be curated to provide a more factual and educational account of elections. There is a fundamental difference between a Hollywood actor and a leader, but the modern image of a politician conceals it. Furthermore, this image fuels popular stereotypes about leaders in general, which explains why The Campaign (with Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis) is almost too realistic to be funny.
3. Look for hidden talent — which means avoiding the charisma trap. There is a universal management paradox whereby the people most likely to climb the organizational ladder do so because (rather than in spite) of character traits that impair their performance as leaders. Although it over 20 years since this paradox was first noted, we are still reluctant to look for leadership potential beyond the people who self-nominate for the role — mostly by bullying and stepping on others. This is one of the principal reasons for the low representation of female leaders in senior political or corporate roles; it also explains why the few women who managed to break through the glass ceiling exhibit more aggressive, ruthless, and pathologically ambitious personalities than their male counterparts (think Marissa Mayer or Margaret Thatcher).
In brief, charisma distracts and destructs. Technology and science have enabled us to systematize many serendipitous practices (e.g., shopping, marketing, relationships, hiring, etc.). A more mature and evolved version of politics will require a charisma detox — leadership is not a game.
沒有留言:
張貼留言