AA145 - Why Incompetent Men Become Leaders

Why Do Incompetent Men Rise to the Top? ️

This week's #ArguingAgile #Podcast tackles Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic's 2013 HBR article on this very real issue with #leadership.

Read the Article:
https://hbr.org/2013/08/why-do-so-many-incompetent-men

0:00 Topic: Incompetent Men in Leadership
0:37 Ratios of Men to Women in Management
3:03 Management vs Leadership
5:04 We Can't Measure Leadership
7:53 Downfall of Bad Managers
10:10 Personality Disorders
11:50 Short Term Thinking
13:31 Women Leaders
14:55 Humility Fails to Impress
16:52 Is Hiring Broken?
18:42 HR, Taylorism, and the Ivory Tower
21:17 Leading with Emotional Intelligence
24:29 Systemic Problems
25:55 The Wrong Conclusions
29:00 Discrimination
30:26 Wrap-Up
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@arguingagile

= = = = = = = = = = = =
Apple Podcasts:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/agile-podcast/id1568557596

Spotify:
https://open.spotify.com/show/362QvYORmtZRKAeTAE57v3

Amazon Music:
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/ee3506fc-38f2-46d1-a301-79681c55ed82/Agile-Podcast
= = = = = = = = = = = = 

Transcript

0:00

Today. We're talking about a great article. It's called why do so many incompetent men become leaders? And I think it's timely and I think it's important. This is a Harvard Business Review article from August 2013. So pretty recent. August 2013? Is that pretty recent? Ten years ago? I'm just being spiteful here. No, no, no. It's not recent at all. Ten years ago. So just bear that in mind. Yeah. We will come back to that. You know, I don't I was going to say we'll, we'll come back to it from the perspective of how has this changed in the last 10 years? I don't think it's changed at all, actually. Yeah, I think this is as relevant as when it was written back in the day. He says there's three popular explanations for the clear under representation of women in management. So it says, why do so many incompetent men become leaders? And he pivots straight into women in management. We're going to ignore that for a second. So we just, we, we, just so we can get through his opening volley here. It says, number one, they're not capable. Hilarious. Number two, they're not interested, which is interesting. But company by company, like there could be a lot to ask. Like, are women interested in the moving into management positions? At this company, that could be a very introspective question to think about. And that might be the topic of another podcast. And number three, they're both interested in cable, but unable to break the glass ceiling in an invisible career barrier based on prejudiced stereotypes that prevent women from accessing the ranks of power. That was a very flowery description. For saying you know, there's no seats. This seat's taken. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. This seat's taken. Please come back later. So, he purports, I was going to say declares he says, the main reason for uneven ratio is our inability to discern between confidence and competence. He posits that. That's what he does. That's what he posits. He's positing all over the place. This is consistent with the findings that leaderless groups have a natural tendency to elect self centered, overconfident and narcissistic individuals as leaders. As a result, charismatic but incompetent men have fewer barriers to reach the top. Leaderless groups elect as leaders men, typically men that they believe will succeed and they believe have what it takes to succeed. Right? I think there's a key in what he, what what the author says here, overconfident, overconfident, narcissistic. I'd be interested in an actual factual study to link the two together to say the number of People that are perceived as having high confidence also have some kind of narcissistic narcissistic disorder on top of that. So like how often are those two put together? He doesn't really give a, like my kind of gripe with this article is a very light on actual statistics and studies that I could go. Back to and kind of follow. He doesn't sign references all that easily. Really doesn't, yeah. It's hard to find facts, but, but I mean, the claim here at the very early beginning of the article, as a result, charismatic, but incompetent men have fewer barriers to reach the top than women. So if, if you noted already, and if you listen to our podcast on a regular basis, you you've noted that we made an intentional pivot from the title of the article mentioning men in leadership and then the very first paragraph of the article or second, I really don't remember talking about women in management positions. And he declares that in his very first paragraph, if I'm not mistaken, in the article he talks about how few women there are in management positions. So, again, because he's very light on facts and studies , I'm going to assume the management positions he's talking about are C level executives. That's what I'm going to assume. Maybe it's C level and directors. And you could argue that I mean, I guess it would be a, it'd be a pretty good arguing case. It'd be a pretty good case to argue that leadership positions are the C level executives. But they're also management. Like, if you're looking for a position in the hierarchy that both has leadership and management rolled together. It is the C level positions. I think that's fair. You might even consider the managing directors, or in some cases directors, in management positions. So he's saying, really he's saying that the primary reason is that we cannot distinguish between competence and confidence. Yeah, that's an interesting one to dig into. Like, we can't, why? Why, why would be the question? And, what I brought up about management versus leadership, I brought it up because I'm questioning whether people are management roles, like middle managers, and even like senior level managers. You know, like your director of HR or your director of finance or something like that. I don't really think of those as. Leadership roles. No, I don't either. Those are ones I think he means by management, right? Yeah. I'm assuming that. It doesn't make it clear. Yeah. He seems to be using both words, leadership and management, kind of interchangeably. Yeah. So we can kind of make an assumption here for the interest of the podcast that management means directors, senior directors, et cetera. And perhaps leadership is maybe managing directors, but largely it's the C level executives. I'm having a tough time with conflating leadership and management for a second I need you to stop And really pull the two apart. If the author is saying, when we hire for these high level executive positions, there we go, that's that I'll settle on a word that means absolutely nothing when we hire for these high level executive positions, to me, that's leadership position. We're looking for a mix of leadership and management skill, and we'll take the management skill because that's what the organization. values because we don't know how to put a value on leadership. Yeah, I agree with that. I think that's what he's saying. And he's also saying that people that are candidates for these positions can demonstrate these traits by their competency rather than their confidence. Well, he's yeah, he's also saying people that are candidates for these positions can fake it. With their charisma until they got the job and then, and then, and then it says, and then the snake gets him on the snakes and then it says arrogance and overconfidence are inversely related to leadership talent, the ability to build and maintain high performing teams and to inspire followers, the best leaders are usually humble. And whether through nature or nurture, humility is a much more common feature in women than men. Well, I agree with that. I think on the whole, women have more humility on the whole, right? We're not generalizing, but we kind of are. So I agree with that. You're saying that if you have, if you need the ability to build high performance teams. You need humility as a trait, is what he's saying, right? He says, an even clearer picture emerges when one examines the dark side of personality. For instance, our normative data, which includes thousands of managers from across all industries, sectors, and 40 countries. I think he's talking about his own business, the data from his own business. Sure. Shows that men are consistently more arrogant, manipulative, and risk prone than women. And he draws a conclusion from this, or I guess the whoever wrote the summary for the article draws a conclusion, says individuals in positions to promote and hire managers should think more critically about what seems like a leadership trait versus what's an actual leadership trait. And again, I would translate this into should think about management, what they need out of management. People doing the hiring should think about what they need out of management and what they want out of. The leadership from the person what they need to distinguish the two first of all, because he's not doing that because he's using both words all over the place. At least that's my take on this. If they're looking for a management if they're looking for a person to fill a management role, they need to see how the person can demonstrate that they can Perform right in that role and that's typically not through being, humble showing humility. That's typically through a track record of having achievements having shown that they can lead and get, get their way basically. Right. The other side of it, though, the other side of it is interesting because he's saying that if you put those people in place with those kinds of characteristics, He's saying those are exactly the sorts of things, those are exactly the sorts of attributes and traits that bring them down eventually. That's right, that's right. Which is paradoxical, when you think about it, it's almost contrarian, right, when you think about it. So, what is he really saying and why? Let's get, let's get deeper into this. He says, the same psychological characteristics that enable male managers to rise to the top of the corporate or political ladder are actually responsible for their downfall. What it takes to get the job is not just different from, but also the reverse of what it takes to do the job well. As a result, too many incompetent people are promoted to management jobs and promoted over more competent people. This one like, this one certainly rings true with me. Because there's definitely parts of my career where I felt that, that less competent people were getting promoted. We're getting promoted, but also less competent people were getting many, many, many promotions. Some of those experiences have helped me have helped me be more vocal in situations where I felt that like the, the, the credit, like I don't really need credit. Like, I'm, I don't really care too much about credit. Like, I, I kind of assume that credit should be given. Like, whenever you take something that somebody else participated in or did a significant amount of work and you use it somewhere, you should give attribution. Just like if you're citing an article. So, otherwise, it's called plagiarism, right? Absolutely. Corporate America does not that way. Like, corporate America, especially when you work for somebody and they're using, you know what I mean? Using your work as like. Hey, this work that's being presented is not like, I didn't just spin this up out of my own amazing brain or whatever. I had a whole team and every consulting firm, whenever I see any of their slick sides, slideshows. I'm like, Oh, I know what's really going on here. Don't look at the info on those slides because you'll see a different name under author. That's right. Yeah, we won't work for people like that. You know, they take, take your PowerPoint or whatever it is, whatever artifact is rampant and yeah, they just simply change it, change the name and take credit. Those are clearly not leaders, right? They're, they're those people that show those traits that. You know, this author is talking about the four, they're not even really traits or attributes. They're more like disorders, aren't they? Psychological disorders, like narcissism, for example. Well, he says, unsurprisingly, the mythical image of, quote, leader embodies many of the characteristics commonly found in personality disorders, such as narcissism, psychopathy, histrionic, oh, he's mispronounced that, histrionic or Machiavellian. The average manager will fail precisely. for having these characteristics and also like, I don't know which one of these it is. And maybe it's Machiavellian or narcissism, but the, the, the, well, I actually, I guess it could be any of them. The laying blame on other people whenever they're confronted with evidence of a failure in any way, shape or form they'll, they seek the blame of it. I mean, it could be any of these narcissism, psychopathy, histrionics. Yeah, it could be any of them. Histrionics is simply the demonstration of it, right? So yeah, you're right. It could be any of these. I don't necessarily agree that. You know, all leaders embody some of these characteristics that they don't, I'm sure everyone listening to the podcast or watching can identify with or at least recognize a leader that doesn't necessarily have these things. They're just a natural born leader. There aren't too many of them. But I'm sure they're around. I can think of one. Yeah. You know, people that lead nations aren't necessarily like this. But we're not talking about that when we're talking about corporate America. I would say that, yeah, definitely not. Like the, the, like the luck that it takes to be promoted to the head of an organization, no matter how small the organization is like, like to be promoted to the head of like a nation. Like that, that's, that's a lottery. It's a very unique, uniquely sized winning lottery number that you've pulled you know, to, to have a career that, that guides you to that point. But anyway, that's like his point here. It says, well, the average manager will, will fail precisely for having these characteristics. The average person in the average role, if you have these characteristics, like it's going to lead to failure. Which I agree with. In an average situation. Yeah. I mean, eventually you will, although. Yeah. Fast forward from 2013 when the article was written in 2023, the average manager, much less leader their tenure is, you can count it on one hand with two fingers chopped off, right? They don't really fail. They simply move on. You know, and they leave this damage in their wake. Oh yeah. That's what's different, I think, from 2013 to now. Yeah. People just don't think twice about it. I don't think it was different in 2013. I think it was the same in 2013. Project money or leadership patience and then you the writing's on the wall and you kind of need to feel out when that writing is on the wall and then you just move. Again, this is like, this is all the stuff that Deming was warning about is a whole, a whole class of managers who don't actually do any work. They just kind of float between companies failing here, failing there and they don't, and by the time the company realizes, What is actually going on that this person that they hired in that's a very charismatic and very ingratiating and you know, makes you feel a certain way because they understand they understand a few things about leadership how to basically they understand a few things about how to communicate like a leader. But they really don't understand leadership, right? And they definitely don't understand Management and by the time you realize something's wrong, you know hey two years have passed and you've got a decline on your hands and you've you've you fired all the Lower level managers and you fired all the employees. They told you to and there's only one One one through line. There's one variable that hasn't changed the whole time. And the company is starting to say, Hmm, maybe the problems here. Yeah, exactly. Oh, well, I'm, I'm interested in now. Thinking through how maybe the, the other aspect of this has changed in the last 10 years since the article was written, which is he largely talks about men here having these disorders, etc. Right? In the 10 years that have gone by, are we not seeing more? women leaders, maybe not at the top level at these maybe not the fortune 50 or fortune 100. But even there, you're seeing more CEOs and presidents that are women today, 2023 than you did in 2013. I wonder if there are examples of You know, women possessing, possessing these tendencies and, and those tendencies bringing them down. Because if, if we find some of that happening there, then those disorders are common across men and women. It's just that women tend to possess more of the other, which is the humility, the sensitivity, et cetera, right? Which kind of, kind of balances some of the other the other what's the word I'm looking for? Saboteurs versus sages. I don't have a current study. The study I have is from 2019 from fortune. They did a a survey of female CEOs in the fortune 500. And in 2013, that number was 20 and in 2019, the number was 33. So it's not a whole lot, but it hasn't really increased by a whole lot. And you know, again, 2019. There's only six years past 2013 or whatever, but let me see if they haven't updated. We're in our 8. 2 percent of the Fortune 500. Which is not not a lot but it has gone up, right? Well, it's I mean, it's doubled. Yep. I mean, if you're measuring it compared to saying it should be 50%. Yeah, but yeah, it's clearly not that. Yeah, it's clearly not that. Yeah. Which is unfortunate. I think Well, it's unfortunate compared to, so compared to what he's saying, most of the character traits that are truly advantageous for effective leadership are predominantly found in those who fail to impress others about their talent for management. That, I mean, that's a, that right there is a key. Sadly, he didn't really support that statement very well. He, he has a Alice Eagley study that, that female managers are more. Likely to elicit respect from their respect, better communicate their vision, empower mentor subordinates better ways of transformational leadership that he indicates. It doesn't give a link to the study, which is weird. I don't know why not. So yeah, from that perspective, yeah, like it's, it's, it's too bad that it's not more than that, knowing what happens at fortune 500 companies were like just trying to change like agility and trying to make tiny little changes in small teams in a tiny little corner that most people you're pretty sure don't even know exist. I can only imagine. Trying to convince the the mad professional management of that organization that they need to empower their teams and they need to look at leadership from a transformational leadership. You know, level about increasing their problem solving and creativity and communicating vision through all levels of the organization effectively I mean, come on, they're going to be like, what are you talking about, Brian? What, what, what, what's going on here? Get out of my office. Yeah, I agree with that. I wonder now, though. You know, given that statistic, we found that the number of women have doubled a huge total of 41, right? I wonder how much of that is because of this whole diversity thing that people are jumping on the bandwagon, say, look, we have 10 women on our management position management circus. That's not a great, that's not a great reason. Like the, the, the reason, the reason should be everything that he notes here at the end is like you want more effective leaders, regardless if they're managers or not. You want more effective leaders who can elicit respect and pride. You want them, you want better communicators in charge of your organization. You want a better problem solving at all levels your organization like these are the things you should be shooting for and if you should be trying to find a person to lead your organization that can get you all these things. I'm certain to think that like the hiring for quote management. In organizations is just like objectively broken or clunky or something's drastically wrong with the hiring process. Well, first of all, you're absolutely correct, right? It is completely broken. But who's formulating these policies? That's probably men. Probably. So it's not surprising that it's broken, I would say. Eh, I mean, maybe but how is it? Like, aren't the majority of shouldn't HR have a Hang on, hang on. So my challenge to what you just asked oh, like it's predominantly men doing this. Yeah, but the majority of even a quick Google search, it says visor, visor. Is that a, is that a credible visor? Zippia? Zippia? Like, there's a lot of non credible sources that I'm seeing on the internet right now. Now you're a really non credible source, Quora. Anyway, the, the, like the first hit on Google, Visor. Visor. Why, why is it got an E in there? Anyway, the, the first credible hit on Google, it says, 76 percent of HR managers are women. That's what it says. Like, so, I, I, I would think that the majority of people doing hiring and having influence over hiring are women. So why, why would they? Not have more influence In, in kind of what we're talking about? That's a good question. I, I was assuming that there'd be more men in the game. let's put this aside for a second. The fact that the hiring process is super clunky and completely broken when it comes to the executives because, because again, like we know, like working with executives and director level and above, we know that just working with those people to affect change is extremely difficult. And anything that crosses department. difficult because of so many different reasons. So I, I wrote down a note before we started about to talk about HR as part of the problem. So if you want to talk about management in like roll the clocks back way to like the early 1900s to talk about like management, management. Talk about a good friend, Fredrick wins. Yeah. Yeah. Talk about Taylor is Taylorism management, meaning I'm going to go out and get my timekeeper and go out and get my the, the, the person that tells everyone how to do the work and tells them they're not carrying heavy enough piles of pig iron and tell them they're not running up and down the yard fast enough. You know what I mean? Like a taskmaster. This is a straight task master. Like the HR people were one of those people and, and their role was to do manager's bidding to fire people and get rid of 'em and get better people in hey kid, you're not just . I was gonna say, Hey, 12-year-old kid you're not carrying enough pig iron. Like , like they, they would do their job. I'm sure that like people back, the early 19 hundreds would say like, oh, well we're just we're just doing our job. Competitively to the market. They'd probably would have a volley of excuses as well. There's no doubt. Why the child labor is not cutting it or whatever. Anyway, the point is, is it just, is it a lot of HR serves the executive? They carry out the orders of the executive. And they work for the executive. And while they're up in the ivory tower, they get all the benefits of being in the ivory tower. So why would you, if you, if your job is to live in the ivory tower? Why would you, living in the ivory tower, Spend a second on anyone outside the ivory tower because it could jeopardize your status in the ivory tower. That's absolutely correct That's why people don't spend time thinking about those outside and and guess what they hire people just like them. Well That's obviously not good. No, it certainly is not good. You know, I think I think for the most part It is very difficult given equal Everything else, right? Equal qualifications, experience, et cetera, between men and women. It's very difficult to to have a, a, a female get the job unless there are other factors at play. Like she knows somebody or the job just happens to have enough. people that are females who are going through the interview process, perhaps that can identify with these applicants. I can empathize with them, etcetera. I mean, the author talks about leading with emotional intelligence, and I agree that men Don't lead with E I. Most of the men that are in management aren't even aware of their own like self awareness. Then they don't have self awareness. They simply are that's again in the Taylorist model. Self awareness is not necessary. Absolutely. All you gotta do is watch a clock, watch the person's performance and then tell them the facts. And then you then you can come across to say, Well, I'm telling you the facts. The checklist says you should be able to do this in X number of minutes and you did it in more than that. So you're wrong. I couldn't agree more. Taylorism was perfect back in the day. Yeah. Back in the day when, when, when you could be an industrial agent. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, that's that's when you know leadership believed or management rather believed that they knew everything there is to know Yeah, and let the workers just simply carry out orders Putting aside for a minute that HR in this ivory tower that they've constructed for? Is the eventual path for this is we just need a long enough time where all of the companies that are running this Taylor's fashion just kind of wither away and die for that management. ethos to kind of go away. That's going to be a long tail. If we wait for that. I think what needs to happen is people need to fully embrace the fact that I can't believe I'm saying this today. 2023 fully embrace the fact that we're no longer in the industrial age. Right. We are fully squarely in the knowledge based economy. Right. Yeah. And so with that being the case, you're no longer comparing a man versus a woman in terms of carrying how much pig iron they can on their backs. Now it's just about Up here. I mean the effects of the Taylorist style management where you only hire workers who can carry pig iron You know in a certain amount whatever 80 pounds or whatever like You're immediately not gonna hire any women ever So, how would you ever get anyone into management if if you're looking within to promote it like there's a lot of stuff That just doesn't make sense that objectively doesn't make sense if you're building your organization off of this concept that that worked in a previous age Arguably doesn't really work today. I say arguably because I feel that's where this article should have gone. It should have gone into depth of you're trying to get together a bunch of teams that are doing things that nobody's done before. And it's not like you have one specific way to do everything. And if you do all that. In the order it's written, you will be successful. In fact, in fact, it is precisely the opposite of if you have a checklist and you just run down the checklist from top to bottom without changing anything, most likely will be a failure and then how do you handle that failure that tells me a lot about your personality. It tells me a lot about your leadership skills. Like the management is a very minimal part of that. Yep. You know, yeah, I agree. And the demonstration of that is going to be. Basically borne out by the fact that you're either leading with EI or you're not, right? I mean, can you set, can you empower teams? Can you lead people as opposed to direct people? Are you focused purely on efficiency, right? Which is what the Taylorist model, Tayloristic model was. Or are you looking at , making teams effective. Yeah. he points out that female managers are more likely to, to have all these attributes. Male managers are, are, by comparison, again, in his article, which, again, doesn't really have a lot of stats to give me. But male managers are Statistically, less likely to bond or connect with their subordinates, and they're relatively more inept at rewarding them for their actual performance. I could argue with that one, because again, he doesn't really give me any stats for that. The result is a pathological system that rewards men for their incompetence, while punishing women for their competence to everyone's detriment. His conclusion here it's, it's more rewarding. People's confidence when you hire them and then not having great systems to track leadership, ability and performance, not management ability and performance. Yeah, I agree with that. I also think that while I generally I agree with the sentiments that he's putting out here, there are exceptions, right? I've had many, many. Managers and leaders that have been women and they've all been great except for one. I'll change the name to protect the innocent They're not innocent, they're very guilty. Yeah, her name's not evident but anyway, so there are exceptions. The flip side of it is true. Also, there are some men that just have that charismatic personality that basically initially and very quickly bond with their teams and carry out that, that comradeship from day one. There aren't too many, but there are some so I think we need to make sure we don't kind of just yeah, sweep everything with one broad brush stroke. Yeah, again, that's why I say at the end of his article, I, I kind of the takeaway, the last sentence takeaway in the article I don't know if I can really agree I need to see some studies I need to see some numbers here because I can't just blanket agree with this because again my god if somebody The evil version of someone reading this is to say oh, I need to get more women in management. That's cool Let me just have them. Let me just have them learn and practice the same narcissistic, psychopathic, histrionic, Machiavellian traits and now, now I've just kind of carbon copied this management template that I was describing earlier where they're just checking what you're doing on the list. And then looking at the employees that are like. The lowest 10 percent of performers carrying pig iron from the train back. And they just like every year we just cut those 10 percent because it's, it's, it's less money to just cut those 10 percent where we might get one top performer out of the new batch of 10 percent that we hired. So like there's some questionable morals happening and. Men learning to play that game versus women learning to play that game. Like, that's not the issue. It's like like, oh, we need to teach more people how to play this psychopathic Machiavellian game. That's not what we're saying here. Like, that's the problem. That's very true. And on that front, I think there may well be cases out there of women doing exactly that. Emulating their male counterparts in these kinds of Personality disorders, right? And yeah, what applies to men, in terms of, it gets them to the top, but it also ultimately is the reason why they fail. It's going to apply to women too. I mean, one of the links from this article to another related article. was about women changing their self image you know, when, when confronted with the reality of the situation when the reality of the situation here is the men that are willing to, to, to put on a big show or be histrionic or to be Machiavellian or whatever the, the message that you're hearing here is like, Oh, it's my I'm not getting promoted because I can't do these things. I need to be more like them and start doing these things. Like, that's a bad, it's a bad message. It's a bad message, but also a bad message with potential straight to the top. And then straight to the bottom. So yes, yeah, right. But at least you're on the roller coaster. That's like, that's how some people look at it. It's like, yeah, but I'm straight to the top. And then I'll just go move and be CEO of another company. Or whatever cheap operations of another, whatever director of another company. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. I'm sure at some point the stakes get too small to change your whole personality for, but some of these people, again, if they really have narcissistic traits or whatever, like they won't notice. That's the, that's the sad part is once you get to that level through this channel that we just talked about, it's going to be so hard for you to change because you've already. Started to see the, the fruits of doing that, right? And then you're going to not change, even though that's going to be your downfall. And yeah, you're right. You just take a few of your, your closest friends with you and move to another company and do it all over again. It's interesting that this. article was listed under workplace discrimination. Yeah. Yeah. You touched on that at the beginning. I don't, I don't know if it made it into the end of the pie. I don't know if it made it into the beginning of the podcast or not, but workplace discrimination it's like, it's not really discrimination. Like it, let me think about this for a second. Cause it could be, it could be interpreted as a bold statement. I'm not really trying to make a bold statement about this. It's not really workplace discrimination. That your workplace is filled with a bunch of assholes. That your workplace is filled with incompetent managers. That's, is that discrimination? It can lead to discrimination once you get there. But to your point your your organizational culture basically is rewarding people that have those four disorders, right? And then through that, yes, it can lead to discrimination. Because you're not going to get a whole lot of women being promoted. No to management or leadership. I mean, or, or you probably won't get those types of people, women or men, the majority, probably women. You probably won't get those type of people staying at your organization. That's right. For a good amount of time and, and thereby leading to the, the, the, the boys club that is your c-suite or whatever, or your director pool or whatever, whatever it is so I, so I can totally see it, but it is like, it's so, I guess it's, it's not. Intentional discrimination, I guess it doesn't sound good. Right? It's not intentional discrimination. We're just all incompetent. That's exactly it. I think that's a perfect fitting end to this broadcast. Well, that makes me feel better. We are just incompetent. Well, that makes me feel better. So to wrap up, if you've ever worked for an incompetent quote leader, I'm really going to say manager. I don't, I don't manager. No such thing as someone who thought themselves a leader, but we're really just an incompetent manager. Yeah. I throw that comment down. I'd love to hear it. I have a bunch, I'm going to go throw a dozen comments down as soon as this podcast is over, because I have. A ton of examples of people by name and be, I can, I can listen by behavior. Yeah. You wouldn't even have mentioned their name. It would be too close. I couldn't, it'd be too close to our working. I'd be skirting. A working agreement, no, no, we don't do that here. Let us know though down, down in the comments below, you can change the names to protect the guilty and don't forget to subscribe and like,