In business psychology, the prevailing wisdom has assumed that a high degree of self-confidence leads to promotions and leadership success. I recently ran across a blog post that disputes this assumption. (Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net)
Business psychologist Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic writes that new studies show that Less-Confident People Are More Successful (Harvard Business Review blog, July 2012).
According to this blog post, a moderately low level of self-confidence is more likely to make you successful. Don’t confuse this with a very low degree of self-confidence. A very low sense of confidence leads to excessive fear, anxiety and stress and will inhibit performance, impede decision-making and undermine interpersonal relationships.
But low-enough self-confidence can work in your favor because it:
- Makes you pay attention to negative feedback and be self-critical. This means you’re open to learning and improving. Most of us tend to listen to feedback and ignore the negative in favor of the positive. If you want to overcome deficits, you must listen to both positive and negative comments.
- Motivates you to work harder and prepare more effectively. If you really want to achieve leadership success, you will do whatever it takes to bridge the gap between the status quo and your professional goals
- Reduces your chances of coming across as arrogant or delusional. People with lower levels of self-confidence are more likely to admit their mistakes instead of blaming others — and they rarely take credit for others’ accomplishments.
If you’re serious about becoming a strong leader, lower self-confidence can serve as a strong ally, inspiring you to work hard, conquer limitations and, put simply, avoid being a jerk.
In the work I do with executives, I’ve found that most come across as very self-confident. The news that this can inhibit their executive presence comes as a shock. Some of my clients fear coming across as vulnerable to others with whom they compete for promotions.
And yet, when their confidence is dialed down a bit, they find there’s more room to ask questions, learn from others, and they actually find it easier to build better connections with the people who matter.
Consider this: when you’re courageous enough to question your own behavior and motives, you extend the privilege to others. We model the behaviors we wish to see in others. That is truly a strong leadership quality.
Avoiding blame and judgment opens the door to cooperation and productivity.
Here are a few things I would suggest to help yourself and your staff:
- Read Arbinger’s Leadership and Self-Deception.
- Work with an executive coach to pinpoint areas of self-deception.
- Ask yourself, “What’s my part in any given problem?”
- Identify ways to set aside your ego and achieve optimum results.
If you’ve found this helpful, let me know. I can be reached here or at 704-827-4474. I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences with these issues.
No related posts.
2 Comments
I fundamentally disagree with your proposition after forty years of observation and participation at all levels in the process. If you do not have an inner strength and confidence in yourself you will be reluctant to surround yourself with strong and challenging others. True self confidence is not expressed by bluster and posturing as the king of the hill which we see much too often. These preening personalities who seem in the author’s mind to be the indicators of self confidence are false fronts and even a psychologost should be able to pierce benieth the veneer. The great original leaders of this country, George Washington, John Marshall, and others were self confident people otherwise they would not have surrounded themselves with brilliant minds who disagreed with them and persevered through extraordinarily difficult circumstances. But they were not “Cocks of the Walk” as many of our self proclaimed leaders are. They were patient with the opinions of others and acknowledged their intelligence and integrity but through their self discipline were able to secure the respect and support of other possible rivals. There is too much reliance today on the half baked opinions of psychologists and sociologists whose academic discipline is equivilant to that of soothsayers of ancient times. Anyone can conduct a “survey or study” that validates the original propositions they hold. This is comfortable pablum for journalists and other self denominated intellectuals in todays environment for whom critical thinking is just too much of an effort or beyond their capacity.
While the title wouldn’t do as well in the old days we called that humility. In sports that called it being “coachable.” One of my first lessons in business I learned is when you know it all it is time to get a new job or retire because the “confidence” that results in being “secure” keeps a person from improving.
I disagree Art who equated over confidence with only people who have false confidence or are visionary jerks. I seen decent people who naively believe what they know is enough because they have:
Lot of success
They have an A.A.S, B.A., MBA, or Ph.D. and are totally unaware of how much more is out there. The term, sophmore means wisefool you get a bit of knowledge that opens your eyes and you believe you are wise, but in reality you only know enough to trick you into biting off more than you can chew.
They really do know pretty much of all that is known about their specific job and yet they remain in a position that doesn’t challange them – this is generally true in simplier lines of occupation.