• Home
  • >
  • Blog
  • >
  • Why Strong Leaders Over-Estimate the Quality of Data They Receive

Les McKeown's Predictable Success Blog

  • October 22, 2023
  • minute read

Why Strong Leaders Over-Estimate the Quality of Data They Receive 

Listen to Les McKeown read this blog post:

Leaders with strong personalities* have one major problem:  the stronger their personality, the poorer the quality of the data that they receive.
* Now, by “strong personalities” I don’t necessarily mean leaders who are loud, or domineering, or charismatic or highly communicative, or brilliant, or hyperactive. They may be some or any of these, but they may also be passive-aggressive, bullying, cheery, pally, backslapping, or cripplingly shy.  All that matters is that whatever their trait or mix of traits, it marks them out as distinctive.
Here’s what that looks like in practice:
Data perception to personality index
As you can see, the self-belief in the quality of data received by a leader increases as their 'personality intensity indicator' increases.

Why would this be? I’ll share that in a moment, but first, here are a few questions for you:

– How would you rate your own leadership ‘personality intensity index’ (0 being, say, “Not sure if anyone knows I exist”, and 10 being, say, “Oh, they know… boy do they know!”)?

– How would you rate the quality of the data you get to run your organization (0 being, say, “Every piece of data I get is 100% wrong”, and 10 being “Every piece of data I get is 100% right”)?

"Leaders with strong personalities have one major problem:  the stronger their personality, the poorer the quality of the data that they receive." - Les McKeown, Founder and CEO, Predictable Success

Click to Tweet
Use the answers to map yourself on the graph above before reviewing what follows. (Not sure your answers may be objectively right? Why not ask some of your colleagues - you may find their answers enlightening.)

So - why would strong leaders over-estimate the quality of the data they’re receiving?

Usually for one or more of these reasons (note, some of these reasons are mutually exclusive: not all apply to every strong leader, but every strong leader suffers from one or more):

1. They believe they engender an ‘open environment’.

Well of course they do. What strong leader hasn’t convinced themselves that they operate an ‘open-door’, truth-telling environment where people can speak their mind?

Here’s the thing: When I’ve heard a leader say that, it has never proved true. Like authenticity, once ‘open-ness’ has to be named, it doesn’t exist.

2. They believe they’re approachable.

How many times have you heard a strong leader express frustration when told they’re aloof, or ‘hard to get to’ or intimidating?

All strong leaders have a schizophrenic relationship with their public persona: what they do and how they do it elevates them to a place that others find hard to enter, and yet they (mostly) all profess to be cuddly teddy-bears at heart who crave interaction with all and sundry. As a result, they believe that people are coming to them with what they need to hear.

As we’ll see in next week's blog post, this is almost always incorrect.

3. They believe they foster ‘great communications’.

Most (though not all) great leaders are also great communicators. Because they do it so well, they believe they can also by osmosis draw great communications (and hence great data) out of other people also. Usually they’re wrong on both counts.

4. They are over-confident in their own judgment.

Strong leaders succeed early on by being right when others are wrong. Later, when data is more complex and outcomes less binary, this ‘visceral truth-telling’ loses its edge. Unfortunately most strong leaders are slow to see the edge dull.

5. They (consciously or subconsciously) suppress the challenge factor when in discussions with others.

Pull up a chair and watch the strong leader in active communication with one of his or her team: Note the myriad ways – facial tics, eye expressions, pulling on the lip, zoning out, zoning in, interrupting, ignoring, over-emphasizing, under-emphasizing, chastising, rewarding, pleading – that they manipulate the discussion in order to suppress challenge from the other person.

  • Of course, the strong leader doesn't see it that way. 
  • Of course, they’d be stunned if you suggested that was what they were doing.
  • Of course, it’s exactly what they’re doing.
  • And of course, the quality of the data they get back in return is seriously impaired.

6. They misinterpret the agreement of others as a confirmation of the accuracy of data.

Very few peers (let alone subordinates) of the strong leader have the strength to finish a conversation on a negative note.

Even if they encourage healthy debate before a decision is made, once they have made their minds up about something, strong leaders highly value compliance with their expressed view.

Consequently, continuing to argue or debate when the decision has been made and the discussion is ‘over’ is generally viewed negatively.

As a result, once a decision has been made, most strong leaders are met with non-aggressive silence or mildly passive assent – which of course subliminally confirms to them the rightness of their decision.

In the next blog post I'll explain why the actual data strong leaders receive is of such poor quality and what you need to do if you're a strong leader caught in this trap (or if you work for or with one).

In the meantime - what's your experience with strong leaders being over-confident in the data they receive?

Let me know in the comments below!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked

  1. Thanks for the article. The archetypal strong leader with dodgy data has of course been Putin who famously misread his Ukraine mil intel.

    At more corporate level I’ve come across one leader who actively rejoices in dodgy info. It allows the organisation to administer punishment beatings at an HR level, and to generally carry on in the way your last email described: of posing as a leader by living in a la la world detached from reality rather getting on with the job of leading anything productive.

    1. Hey Gideon! Not like you to have strong opinions, of course 🙂 Thanks for this – now actively expunging the mental image of 'punishment beatings at an HR level….'. Hope all is well -would love to catch up next time I'm in your metropolis.

  2. In my personal experience, I agree with your positions in this article. Just curious, were there any studies conducted with data that supports this? Is the quality of data in those studies reliable?

{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}
Success message!
Warning message!
Error message!