Something You Should Know - The Voice Computing (Siri and Alexa) Revolution & Why So Many Bosses are Incompetent

Episode Date: May 9, 2019

Does cooking food on the grill increase your risk of getting cancer? The answer is – maybe. But it isn’t that simple. This episode begins with a discussion on which foods may or may not increase cancer risk and how you cook that food may make all the difference. (http://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/does-grilling-really-cause-cancer) In the old Star Trek TV show (filmed about 50 years ago), Scotty used to talk to the computer on board the starship Enterprise. That was how he communicated his commands. Fast forward to today and we are now doing the same thing with Siri and Alexa. So, is voice computing the beginning of a new revolution in computing that will unshackle us from the keyboard? Or is it just a quick way to set a timer, play music and find the nearest fast food restaurant - but not much more? Journalist James Vlahos joins me to discuss this. James is a contributor to The New York Times Magazine, Popular Science, Scientific American, the Atlantic, GQ, and National Geographic – and he is author of the book Talk to Me: How Voice Computing Will Transform the Way We Live, Work (https://amzn.to/2YinseC) What do Adidas, Ikea, Nutella, Porsche and Hermes have in common? They are all name brands that many people mispronounce. Listen to hear if you’ve been pronouncing them correctly or not. http://www.businessinsider.com/brand-names-mispronounced-2016-5 Have you ever worked for an incompetent boss and wondered how he or she ever got to where they are? There are interesting reasons why so many leaders in high places are incompetent – and it has been researched by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, professor of business psychology at University College in London and Columbia University in New York. He is also author of the book Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders (and how to fix it). (https://amzn.to/2Jxqk37). He joins me to explain why this happens and how to stop it. This Week’s Sponsors -LinkedIn. Go to www.LinkedIn.com/podcast to get $50 off your first job posting. -Ancestry. Go to www.Ancenstry.com/something to get your Ancestry DNA kit for only $50 (offer expires 5/13/19) -Better Help. Go to www.BetterHelp.com/SYSK to get 10% off your first month of counseling -Away Travel. For $20 off a suitcase go to www.awaytravel.com/something and use the promo code: something -Capital One. www.Capitalone.com. What’s in your wallet? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today on Something You Should Know... Is it true cooking food on the grill can cause cancer? I'll tell you what the science says. Then, the world of voice computing, Siri and Alexa. Is it the beginning of a revolution, or it just is what it is? The basic utilities are popular, setting timers, playing music is very popular, but beyond that there haven't been a ton of just killer apps for voice yet and that's something that people in the voice

community are fretting about a bit. Plus name brands you may be mispronouncing like Adidas and Nutella and a lot of bosses and leaders are really incompetent. Why is that and how do we fix it? If we focus more on competence instead of confidence, more on humility instead of charisma, and more on integrity instead of narcissistic tendencies, we will end up with better leaders, both male and female. All this today on Something You Should Know. As a listener to Something You Should Know, I can only assume that you are someone who likes to learn about new and interesting things and bring more knowledge to work for you in your everyday life. I mean, that's kind of what Something You Should Know is all about.

And so I want to invite you to listen to another podcast called TED Talks Daily. Now, you know about TED Talks, right? Many of the guests on Something You Should Know have done TED Talks Daily. Now, you know about Ted Talks, right? Many of the guests on Something You Should Know have done Ted Talks. Well, you see, Ted Talks Daily is a podcast that brings you a new Ted Talk every weekday in less than 15 minutes. Join host Elise Hu.

She goes beyond the headlines so you can hear about the big ideas shaping our future. Learn about things like sustainable fashion, embracing your entrepreneurial spirit, the future of robotics, and so much more. Like I said, if you like this podcast, Something You Should Know, I'm pretty sure you're going to like TED Talks Daily.

And you get TED Talks Daily wherever you get your podcasts. Something You should know. Fascinating intel. The world's top experts. And practical advice you can use in your life. Today, Something You Should Know with Mike Carruthers. So, depending on where you live, the weather should be warming up, thoughts turn to summer, and thoughts turn to outdoor cooking.

And there has been a lot written in recent years about the dangers of outdoor cooking, essentially that it can lead to cancer. But when you look closer, it seems to be more about how you cook on the grill. First of all, the risk is almost exclusively from grilling meat, not vegetables or anything else, just meat, and from cooking the meat too hot. If you're incinerating your meat, you are increasing your risk of cancer. Low and slow is the way to go when cooking on the grill. Avoid the black charring of your meat, chicken, or fish. Also, marinating meat first has been shown to significantly cut down on the carcinogens, and it usually makes the meat taste better.

And here's one more piece of advice. Keep everyone upwind and keep the grill away from the table. A 2015 study found that people who were exposed to barbecue fumes for one hour a day had a higher cancer risk than those who were not. And they absorbed the fumes through their skin as well as by breathing it. And that is something you should know. You don't have to go back too many years to a time when the idea of voice computing, that is, just talking to your computer rather than typing, that was just science fiction. But then along came Siri and Alexa, and this whole idea of voice computing has become a reality.

So how does it all work, and what does it all mean, and where is it going? Will we soon be just tossing out our keyboards and talking to the computer? James Vlahos is a contributor to the New York Times Magazine, Popular Science, Scientific American, The Atlantic, GQ, and he is author of a book called Talk to Me, How Voice Computing Will Transform the Way We Live, Work, and think. Hey, James. Thanks for having me on. So define voice computing for me.

When I think of voice computing, I think of Alexa, or I think of Scotty on Star Trek talking to the computer, saying, computer, warp speed, or whatever. What is it in your view? Voice computing is just being able to interact with the machine using only your voice. So no typing, no clicking, no swiping, all of these things that we've been forced to do in the past to use computers we are now being liberated from. And just like on Star Trek, as you referenced, we can start using our voice. Popular incarnations of this right now, of course, are Siri and Alexa and the Google Assistant. But this is something that computer scientists

have been pursuing for virtually as long as there have been computers. When I would think of the term voice computing some years ago, what I would think of would be when people tried to talk to a computer and it would type what you were saying, and voice recognition, basically, that that's kind of the early stages of it, I guess. And it was horrible. It never could get it right. You're preaching to the choir on this one. I

started using speech recognition in the, I guess, the early 2000s. And, you know, you'd get the software and they boast on the box, you know, that it's, you know, above 80% recognition rate or error rate. And you think, oh, that's pretty good. And then when you realize that two out of 10 words you say are wrong and you're going to have to manually correct those, you quickly realize that's useless. So, I mean, it is funny you bring that up because of all, there are many, many technologies that go into making something like Alexa work, but speech recognition, that's kind of the very first part of the process. And that is the part of the process that has actually improved the most through the help

of machine learning to make these systems possible. And it's still not perfect. We've all had swearing fits at Siri, but it's gotten much, much better to a point where you can't actually speak and have the computer take down those words correctly. And so how does it work? How does Alexa hear my voice from across the room and figure out not only the words I'm saying, but the meaning of that sentence as a whole, and then do something that more often than not, not always, but more often than not, is correct? Think of it as kind of a layer cake, a number of things that happen to happen in a sequence to make it all work. So the first part is the speech recognition, and that's literally just taking the sound waves that are coming from your mouth and turning those into words inside of a computer.

And it seems simple. It seems simple to us because we're used to hearing and understanding very hard for a computer, not least because of all the homophones in language. So, you know, words like to, to, or to, or to, the great variability of how people pronounce things, the fact that there's background noise, it just makes it frightfully difficult for a computer to even just get that very first step of kind of writing down the words correctly. But as I say, that's gotten much better. Then when it comes to understanding the meaning, that's even more difficult. It's easiest when you're just saying something very kind of crisp and clear, you know, like, turn on my Yacht Rock

playlist. Alexa knows what you're trying to say. Or set timer for 10 minutes. You know, just a clear command. But the more you get into sort of longer sentences, more complex things, you have to understand language. You really have to understand the world. You have to understand people. You have to understand objects in the world. So that's, we're still in the early stages of teaching computers all of that, because really to be perfect at that, you're talking about a computer that is as smart as a person is. And sort of the final step in the process after the speech recognition and the natural language understanding is producing a response, generating a response, converting that back into sound waves that a user can hear. So that's why I say if you're going to get all mad at Siri or Alexa,

just pump the brakes and then think how hard it is for the computer to actually respond intelligently to you. So it's safe to assume then that 10 years from now, it'll be a lot better than it is today. It is safe to assume that. I mean, the improvements are happening all the time. The speech recognition will continue to improve. I still don't think we're going to have, if you're just imagining that talking to a computer is going to be exactly like talking to a person, we won't be there. Because that's artificial general intelligence. That's the term for that.

And even kind of the most bullish technologists are saying that's, you know, decades away and maybe we will never get there. But I think when it comes to just being able to do stuff in your life using your voice instead of typing, there's going to be a lot of the tasks that we ask computers to do now that are just going to be handleable by speech. And so why is this important? So what? It's the next step in the evolution, I get that, but why is this one in particular worth stopping and discussing and writing books about? whenever you have a new paradigm, and when we go from mainframe computers to desktop ones or desktop ones to mobile ones, whenever that happens, there's a huge multi-billion dollar, even trillion dollar set of new business opportunities that arise. So what we're seeing between Apple, Amazon, and Google in particular is they're having a fierce, fierce war because they want to dominate this new paradigm. If people are suddenly going to computers in a different way, that can kind of spell the death of your company.

Or if not the death of it, at least make you, you know, you can wind up being Microsoft, you know, not to throw sharp elbows, but, you know, a company that is seen as being less cool or technologically relevant than it once was. So that's one big reason that everybody's ears should be perking up and eyes popping out of their heads as they think about this is imagine the most powerful companies in the world now battling in a way that might reshuffle the pecking order between them. That's one way. And then the other reason that it's important is you just, you start to think about daily life and think about issues like privacy and surveillance. We're all getting

pretty hot under the collar about that already. And now we've got these new devices in our homes that have microphones connected to the internet. And what are they recording? And when are they recording it? And that's a big issue for people to wonder about. And another area, voice lets us create the equivalent of virtual beings. You know, these kind of AIs that we've seen in science fiction for so long, where there are friends and our advisors and our therapists, and maybe even our lovers, like this is, it's happening. Like it is, it is happening now. And it happens because when a computer talks and has a personality, and it's not just, you know, some keys and a mouse, we have a whole different set of relationships with that technology.

And so let's talk about some of the things you just said, and certainly one of them is that Alexa, turn on a timer for 10 minutes, means Alexa's always got her ears perked up in case I say her name. But when I don't say her name, I assume that somebody could, if they wanted to, listen to everything going on in my house. You know, they certainly could in theory, and people are very worked up about this, but just remember you've also,

you've probably got a computer if you're in your office that's connected to the internet. It's got a microphone. You've got a phone that's always connected to a network. It's got a microphone. So, you know, if you're worried about these new voice computing devices, you should be equally worried or paranoid about these other computers. I mean, what we're talking about is the illicit use of these connections. Like if Google or Amazon is lying to you, or if hackers have gained access to these portals, that the potential is there. Even beyond that, like what happens, what about when you do authorize Siri or Assistant or Alexa to talk to you? You've

initiated a reaction. It's just a whole big new data stream where they can listen to you. And it's a little bit different than just typing a search into Google. You're a little more personal. Maybe you share a little bit more when you're talking versus when you're typing. And I've always wondered, because I've heard kids like talk to Suri and talk to Alexa and ask her, you know, inappropriate questions. And I'm always wondering, well, is Google like logging this and saying, well, these people are a little weird? Do they have a file on my son or your kids or whatever? I don't think so. There's too many of them. I mean, what you actually, any person I've ever spoken with who works on the back end of these dialogue systems will tell you there's a lot of profanity, sexist remarks, racist remarks, just sort of inappropriate exchanges that are happening. So they're getting sort of this, you know, they're listening in on kind of a dark side of humanity. Well, but you said they're not listening, but then you also said,

hey, there's a lot of profanity going on. Well, how would they know that if they're not listening? The computer can have a list of phrases and words that have been identified as being inappropriate, and then it's automatically scanning all of the conversational data that's coming in. What percentage of the time are we hearing this phrase? phrase. So I guess maybe it comes down to how you define listening, but on sort of a higher level, listening for statistical patterns, but not like one person with a live connection to your home listening in being like, whoa, how about that? We are talking about the fascinating world of voice computing, what it is and where it's going. And my guest is James Vlahos. He is a contributor to the New York Times Magazine, Popular Science, Scientific American. And he's author of the book, Talk to Me,

How Voice Computing Will Transform the Way We Live, Work, and Think. You know, I love stories about how ideas happen. And here's a great one. Two friends stuck at JFK Airport with dead phones, delayed flights, and a bright idea. Luggage with power. Thus, the Away Carry-On was born. You can choose from nine colors and four sizes that are all compliant with major airlines as carry-ons.

And all of them are made with premium German polycarbonate that is unrivaled in strength and impact resistance. And they're very lightweight. I was amazed when I first picked mine up. You think it's going to be so much heavier than it is. And it has really sturdy wheels, a TSA-approved combination lock, plus the Away Carry-On can charge cell phones, tablets, anything that's powered by a USB cord.

A single charge of the Away Carry-On will charge an iPhone five times. There's a lifetime warranty, a 100-day trial, and free shipping in the continental United States. I love my Away Carry-On. It is amazing how much I can pack in it so I don't have to check a bag. For $20 off a suitcase, visit awaytravel.com slash something and use the promo code something during checkout. For $20 off a suitcase, visit awaytravel.com

and use the promo code something at checkout. Since I host a podcast, it's pretty common for me to be asked to recommend a podcast. And I tell people, if you like something you should know, you're going to like The Jordan Harbinger Show. Every episode is a conversation with a fascinating guest. Of course, a lot of podcasts are conversations with guests, but Jordan does it better than most. Recently, he had a fascinating conversation with a British woman who was recruited and radicalized by ISIS and went to prison for three years.

She now works to raise awareness on this issue. It's a great conversation. And he spoke with Dr. Sarah Hill about how taking birth control not only prevents pregnancy, it can influence a woman's partner preferences, career choices, and overall behavior due to the hormonal changes it causes. Apple named The Jordan Harbinger Show one of the best

podcasts a few years back, and in a nutshell, the show is aimed at making you a better, more informed, critical thinker. Check out The Jordan Harbinger Show. There's so much for you in this podcast. The Jordan Harbinger Show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Contained herein are the heresies of Rudolf Buntwine, erstwhile monk turned traveling medical investigator. Join me as I study the secrets of the divine plagues and uncover the blasphemous truth that ours is not a loving God, So, James, are these technologies the kind of technologies that we've heard about that that theoretically learn as they go and get better or does Alexa get to know me better

and how what I say and how I speak and the words I use or it's just a static algorithm and she either gets it or she doesn't she's always always improving. She is always improving. So she's listening for different types of dialects. Maybe you have a Southern accent. Maybe you're speaking English as a second language, whatever it is. So there's a lot of work in just improving, specializing for different types of speakers to be able to understand them better. And then, you know, for a Google Assistant this way, it kind of depends on the platform. But they do like to have, you know, if they know your location and they know some of your favorite restaurants. This already happens with the Internet search.

You get some customization of results based on all of your past searches and all of your past click through, what you've gone through. So there is some kind of some level of profiling that's happening. What's the downside other than the privacy thing, which we've talked about already? But what else? What are the other potential downsides that people are seeing and your sense of whether they really are or not? A downside of this technology that is high on my personal list of concerns is access to information and control of information. So think first of a conventional

internet search. You're at the computer. You type in your search terms. You see that long list of results. You kind of browse. You look. You click the one. Oh, I didn't like that. You come back to the main page. You go to another. So you are the captain of your own informational destiny, if you will. Now compare that to you're just asking a voice computing device, you're asking Siri, you're asking Alexa, you know, what's the best Japanese restaurant near me? Or, you know, when, how many feet will climate change make the oceans rise? Whatever it is, you just ask a question and Google or Amazon chooses the answer for you

and gives it to you. So they're suddenly in, I mean, they're already sort of borderline monopolist in their control of the business of information. This strengthens their hand even further and puts them a lot more in charge. And, you know, the profits from this dissemination of information also, you know, even go flow more downhill towards those companies. But I would think too that if you're not, if you're doing an internet search for the best Japanese restaurant near you on your phone,

and you're doing it just with voice commands, and you're not looking at your screen, which Google might fill up the perimeter of that screen with ads that they can sell, but now you're not seeing that, that there's a potential loss of revenue, because they're just going to voice back to you, the nearest Japanese restaurant is, you know, whatever it is, and it's two miles away. Yeah, you're absolutely right. And this is a headache for Google, which is an ad supported, you know, they have made their fortune through advertising. voice search really screws up the prevailing paradigm of screens have lots of real estate, lots of room for sponsored results, ads. It works. It really

works. That's why there's Google. With voice, we don't have sponsored results yet. We don't have sort of embedded ads. It's my belief and the belief of some marketing experts that we will someday, but we're just not there yet. Like Google and Amazon are treading cautiously. Amazon's kind of in a better position because though they do actually have ad revenue, they're in the business of selling stuff and capturing people in their ecosystem. So you can do a product search through Alexa and she says like, here's the product and why don't I add it to your list? And Amazon will sell it to you.

So they've got kind of the whole experience encapsulated in one bubble. Right, yeah. You can ask for it and they can say, yeah, we can have it at your door tomorrow or in an hour. Yeah, they're in the catbird seat. We actually have three smart speakers in our house, and I think a year or two ago, we didn't have any. And I sometimes forget to use it for things like we were talking about, like Alexa set the timer.

One of them's in the kitchen. And, you know, I'm't, I'm not even like trained to think in that way yet. And so I don't often use it. I use the timer on the oven. And then I think, why could it just set Alexa set a timer for 10 minutes? Yeah, I think we're at a curious place in terms of adoption. You look at the stats and, you know, I think we're over in the U.S., for instance, more than 100 million homes have some type of smart speakers. So there's a lot of adoption. They're very popular. People are buying them.

But when it comes to actual use of them, I mean, the basic utilities are popular, setting timers, reminders, make a calendar entry, all that kind of stuff. That's getting pretty popular. Playing music is very popular. Answering basic questions is popular. But beyond that, there haven't been a ton of just killer apps, essentially, for voice yet. And that's something that people in the voice community are fretting about a bit, is when are we going to get these huge new success stories of... Because setting timers and playing music,

we've been doing that for several years now with voice technology. So what's the new thing? What's the next thing that's really going to push this forward to even more people? What's the next thing that's really going to push this forward to even more people? What do you think? Well, I think it lies in not in applications where efficiency is so important, but rather in applications where kind of a human touch is important.

So that's things like health care, counseling, virtual companionship. You know, a lot of people come home, they live alone, and you just want to hear a voice in your environment. And traditionally, we'd turn on the radio, turn on the TV, just have it in the background. Well, as companies like Amazon explore sociable conversation You know, you come in, you're fixing dinner by yourself. Hey, Alexa, you know, tell me a joke. What's a good story? Like a little, yeah, small talk and companionship will be coming through these things. One of the things that really interests me, fascinates me, because I don't understand much of how the smart speakers work, is like when Alexa's playing a song and you've left it on and it's really loud and you want to tell her to turn it down and you say, Alexa, turn it down, how can she hear me when

the music is so loud? Part of the solution involves this technology of beamforming, which is you have these microphones that are arrayed in a ring around something like an echo. They're pointing outward, and it's almost like stereo vision or something. Knowing that the sound is loudest coming into microphone one, it's almost as loud from microphone two. It's starting to get much less loud from microphone three. Tell us the computer, all right, microphones one and two, like those are the ones. And then once you can apply, you know, kind of directional listening, like a very focused cone of listening, that at least screens out some of the background noise. But then there are also many complicated algorithms for just, and I've heard sort of these before and afters, and they'll play the version of, you know, someone trying to talk to Alexa before the processing has happened, and you hear all the background noise and other people talking

and music and the rest, and then you hear it with what, you know, they have modeled and identified as like, nope, that's all the background, we're going to strip it away, and it suddenly becomes much softer and you hear the person's voice talking to Alexa. Well, it is interesting, and it also makes you wonder where it's going to take us. You know, when we're freed from the keyboard and we can just use our voice to do all sorts of things, where does that take us next?

James Vlahos has been my guest. The name of his book is Talk to Me, How Voice Computing Will Transform the Way We Live, Work, and Think, and you will find a link to his book in the show notes. Thanks, James. Yeah, thanks so much. People who listen to Something You Should

Know are curious about the world, looking to hear new ideas and perspectives. So, I want to tell you about a podcast that is full of new ideas and perspectives and one I've started listening to called Intelligence Squared. It's the podcast where great minds meet. Listen in for some great talks on science, tech, politics, creativity, wellness, and a lot more. A couple of recent examples, Mustafa Suleiman, the CEO of Microsoft AI, discussing the future of technology.

That's pretty cool. And writer, podcaster, and filmmaker John Ronson, discussing the rise of conspiracies and culture wars. Intelligence Squared is the kind of podcast that gets you thinking a little more openly about the important conversations going on today. Being curious, you're probably just the type of person Intelligence Squared is meant for. Check out Intelligence Squared wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, everyone. Join me, Megan Rinks. And me, Melissa Demonts, for Don't Blame Me, But Am I Wrong? Each week, we deliver four fun-filled

shows. In Don't Blame Me, we tackle our listeners' dilemmas with hilariously honest advice. Then we have But Am I Wrong?, which is for the listeners that didn't take our advice. Plus, we share our hot takes on current events. Then tune in to see you next Tuesday for our Lister poll results from But Am I Wrong? And finally, wrap up your week with Fisting Friday, where we catch up and talk all things pop culture. Listen to Don't Blame Me, But Am I Wrong on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. If you've had at least a couple of jobs in your career,

there's a good chance that somewhere along the way you've worked for a boss that you might describe as incompetent. I know I have. And if you're like me, you may have wondered at the time, and you may still be scratching your head, as to how incompetent people so often end up running the show. It's also something Tomas Chamorro-Premusic has looked into. Tomas is a professor of business psychology at the University College in London

and at Columbia University in New York. He is the chief talent scientist at Manpower Group, and he's author of the book, Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders and How to Fix It? Hi, Tomas. Thank you for having me. So if there's a quick, condense it in a nutshell answer, why do so many incompetent people end up in leadership positions? A lot of the practices that organizations have in place fail to measure how leaders perform. Typically, they focus on what their bosses think or subjective supervisory ratings of leaders' performance. I think in the data-driven world or data-rich world that we live

in today, there's just no excuse for playing it by ear, and organizations need to be more evidence-based when they measure the performance of leaders. I think everybody has worked for or worked in an organization where we have seen people, mostly men, I suspect, rise to levels in the organization where they clearly are in over their head. They don't know what they're doing. They were good at getting the job, but they're not necessarily very good at doing the job. Absolutely. And you are right that they are more likely to be male than female, even when you take into account the relative number, so the proportion of people in leadership who are

men versus women. So this happens for three reasons. The first is that those who elect leaders focus more on confidence than competence. And why, you might wonder. Well, confidence is a lot easier to observe. And in a world that is increasingly complex and where you need a lot of technical expertise and knowledge to actually realize whether other people are experts or knowledge, it's the quick and lazy efficient option to say,

oh, you know, this person seems confident, assertive, so they must be good. The second is that we pay a lot of attention to whether people are charismatic and charming. This is especially true because we rely a lot on face-to-face interviews, short interactions with others that may or not tell you something about how good that person actually is. And the third is that we actually encourage people to lean in or put themselves forward to leadership roles. And when they do, we assume that they actually have potential. But actually, the research on this is very clear. A lot of the times the people who lean in are overconfident, if not narcissistic, and they often don't actually have much potential

or talent for leadership. So if we focus more on competence instead of confidence, more on humility instead of charisma, and more on integrity instead of narcissistic tendencies, we will end up with better leaders, both male and female. It also seems that things are set up in a way that if you perform well at your job, if you're a good salesman, it's hard not to get promoted to sales manager, but that's a different job altogether. Correct. And it's one of the big paradoxes or irrationalities even of the workplace that, you know, well, as the Peter principle noted a few years ago, everybody eventually gets promoted to their own level of incompetence. But it's absurd, if you think about it,

that the reward for somebody who is really good at their job as an individual contributor is to move them out of that role and force them to manage people, which they may not even be interested in doing when they're able. But a lot of the times, they're not even able to do that. In reality, we should look at leadership potential as something that is unrelated or independent of one's potential to function well as an employee. You see this in sports, for example, in professional sports.

A lot of the best coaches or managers were mediocre individual players, and many star individual athletes are very bad as coaches or managers when they get there. But in an organization, using that same example of salesman to sales manager, if you don't pull from the pool of salesmen to manage the department, where in the world are you going to get people who understand the business? I think you're absolutely right that you need to have a minimum level of track record, subject matter expertise, credibility, so that people look up to you and respect you, right? At the same time, if we focus too much on what people have achieved before, at the expense of neglecting the soft skills that are actually needed

to turn a group of individuals into a high-performing team, things like EQ, integrity, good judgment, vision, self-awareness, and even specific leadership styles like transformational leadership that will help you do this, you won't get very far. And typically what organizations do is they invest or even waste a lot of money trying to coach or develop people who have limited potential for leadership with far worse results than if they selected people who have these competencies to begin with, and then they try to make them better. I mean, it's just like everybody might be able to play the piano or sing, but it will be a lot quicker, cheaper, and easier to train people if they actually have some musical talent to begin with. You sometimes see leaders jump industries.

You know, someone in the food and beverage industry becomes the new CEO of a telecommunications business. I'm just making this up, but you see that happen. Does that work, or is leadership such a unique skill that you can transfer it around or not? I love this question. And, you know, although we have, it's only a minority of people that can operate or, you know, make up real world representative case studies that can be used to answer this question. I think there are a lot of reasons to expect the answer to be yes, this rotation, taking people from one industry and moving them to another, can be very advantageous. And absolutely, at the very least, the core foundational leadership competencies that are

needed to motivate and engage a team are quite universal. Leaving aside technical expertise, you need to have EQ, IQ, you need to be curious, you need to be self-aware, coachable, humble, and have integrity. That's true whether you're a military leader, soccer team manager, a business corporate leader, or run a nonprofit. But then I think on top of that, there are advantages of importing expertise from another industry. The classic example that is happening more and more today is you have Silicon Valley tech giants importing leadership talent from Wall Street or Big Pharma because they want to become more corporate and maintain the rapid growth that they've had for the past 10 years, or sometimes

organizations that want to be more consumer-centric and more B2C or customer-centric. So they would import leadership talent from retail or consumer brands into what traditionally has been a B2B market. So I think we're going to see it happen more and more, and I think it definitely is very advantageous. Since you ask the question in the title of your book, why do so many incompetent men become leaders? Is it a lot? Is it percentage-wise? Are we all being managed by incompetent people? Not all of us, but I do make the point straight away in my book that leadership is far more negative in the real world, at least in the sense of how people experience it, how employees experience it, than we typically think. And it's certainly not as glamorous, positive, inspirational as business school books and management schools have historically suggested.

I give you three or four data points that back this up. First, we know that leadership is a major driver of engagement and motivation. And yet, after 10 or 15 years of annual surveys reviewing how people feel about their jobs and how enthusiastic and engaged they are, we see that only 30% of people like their job and that most of those who don't mostly object their manager, their boss. We also know that most of those who don't mostly object their manager, their boss. We also know that most people leave not just their jobs, but also traditional employment because they are traumatized or they experience negative things with their managers, with their direct supervisor or leader.

And if you don't want to look at all the statistics and all the data that are reported out there, just Google my boss is or my manager is to see what most people think of their bosses. I mean, things like crazy, unbearable, toxic, and some other things that are kind of, you know, too rude to discuss here will come up. So I think the average experience that people have of their leaders, of a, you know, too rude to discuss here will come up. So I think the average experience that people have of their leaders, of managers, is pretty dismal. And there is a disconnect between that reality and all the money that is invested in either identifying, hiring, or developing leaders. It seems like we have a long way to go to make progress here.

And one of the things that I've wondered when I've worked in organizations that had incompetent leaders, toxic leaders, whatever, and I think anybody else who wonders this, they look at this person and see a fool, an incompetent leader. Why doesn't somebody higher up in the organization see it as well? This is interesting, and there are several possibilities, but I think one of them, of course, is the paradoxical fact that although leadership should be evaluated in terms of how the leader or manager impacts his or her team,

subordinates, followers, we actually assess it or evaluate it based on how they manage up, right? So unfortunately, this means that managers and leaders, much like employees, are rewarded for focusing their efforts on impressing their superiors. Secondly, I'd say that incompetence trickles down. So, you know, I remember the story of David Ogilvie, the advertising tycoon who once said that his only onboarding strategy when he hired new people at Ogilvie was to gift them a matryoshka doll, one of these babushka kind of dolls. And he said, well, if you hire people who are smaller than you, we will eventually become a company of dwarves. If you hire people who are bigger than you, we will eventually become a company of giants.

And I think that happens with incompetence. It starts at the top and trickles down because every incompetent hiring decision that somebody makes is then tried to mask or hide or, you know, it's just tough for people to justify that they have made mistakes. So even in the presence of evidence for the fact that leaders are not functioning or not working effectively, people would rather hide the truth and bend the facts and, you know, find fake news or alternative realities. I mean, the simplest example of this is the manager who interviews a candidate for a leadership role, and then just because they like that candidate, that person gets the job. Six months later or 12 months later, despite overwhelming evidence that they're not performing well, they would only pay attention to what they're doing well and say,

ah, you know, this was a very strong recruit, because that's a way of saying, look how smart my hiring was, which is much better than saying, oh, I'm dumb because I made a mistake. Yeah, well, right. Who wants to admit they made the mistake and hired the wrong guy? But it seems to happen all the time. And given that it happens in the rather dismal picture you've painted here, what, if any, advice to people who work for these people? So it's tricky because you can't obviously change your boss.

If you have an incompetent leader, you can't just do something to make them competent overnight. That doesn't exist. You also can't decide to leave and assume that you're going to have a really good boss because, you know, the norm I'd say is in 70% of the cases, you won't be lucky and in 30% you will, but it's tough to find these people. So I think there are two or three simple pieces of advice or suggestions or tips that I usually give. The first is, of course, try to play the game, make yourself useful, and at least try to be in their good books while you think about other options and perhaps even try to move within the organization and work for somebody that you have identified as more competent, more inspiring, and a better that boss or manager some indication of how you perform best and what you need to do your job better. At the end of the day, a lot of leaders who might not naturally be competent at managing others can still negotiate and think aboard some suggestions to be more effective in their job.

And I think the third one is, you know, most people today, regardless of whether they have a good or a bad boss, need to be thinking beyond their current job and think of their careers and not focus so much on their current employment, but more on their long-term employability. So even if you are suffering from having a bad or incompetent leader, well, try to use the time you have to keep building up your skills, your knowledge, your expertise, improving your CV, your resume,

and then keep your options open for alternatives. There is a reason why 70% of employees today are considered passive job seekers, which means that they're not actively looking for alternatives. There is a reason why 70% of employees today are considered passive job seekers, which means that they're not actively looking for alternatives, but they're passively hoping or waiting for a better job offer. But in order to get that better job offer, which will hopefully include a better leader, you need to boost your CV and boost your employability. Do you think that people who are lousy managers have at least some inkling of it, or do you think people pretty much think, yeah, I'm doing a pretty good job here? And so I think you have managers of both varieties or both types. This is about self-awareness, ultimately, and self-awareness, much like height, weight,

sense of humor, or singing talent, is normally distributed, and it's a matter of degrees or a quantitative trait. Some have a lot of it, so they get all the feedback they need, even with minimal signals. Some are beyond hope, and they're totally uncoachable and almost deluded or self-deceived. Most people are in the middle. When I originally proposed to Harvard Business Review to do this book, they said, you know, even though I had written an article in their online portal that did very well, they said, the title and the theme is a little bit too offensive for our readers, most of whom are male executives. And I did tell them, look, a lot of them won't even notice that it's about them.

They will read it and say, oh, yeah, I know somebody who is like that. And then for those who actually might feel that some of the behaviors described there are actually referring to what they do, well, they need this type of feedback in order to identify flaws and get better. So in a way, having a minimum level of awareness as to what you're doing wrong and where the gaps are between what you're doing and what you would like to do is totally indispensable if you want to get better. You might be aware of it and self-aware and still don't get better, but if you're not aware, you will only improve by luck.

Are you optimistic that things will get better or are you not? I am optimistic because I think we are moving in the right direction. And the big advantage we have is that the science is so solid, so strong. The body of knowledge on what makes a good leader, how do we evaluate these qualities, and how can we predict leadership effectiveness and leadership performance is so established. All we need is the willingness to apply it. And of course, some organizations are applying this science and they are outperforming their competitors because they are more meritocratic and science-driven in their practices.

So the ROI, the business case, has been made already. Well, your explanation certainly makes sense and really does explain why so many of us find ourselves working for people who don't seem particularly good at their job, but nevertheless, there they are. Tomás Chamorro Promusic has been my guest. The name of the book is Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders and How to Fix It. You'll find a link to his book at Amazon in the show notes for this episode. Thank you, Tomas. Thanks for being here. Thank you so much. I know it's not polite to correct someone's grammar or pronunciation,

but we're going to do it anyway. And we're going to talk about some of the brand names that a lot of people mispronounce, me included. For example, I've always thought it was Nutella, that chocolate hazelnut stuff. It's actually pronounced Nutella. Ikea. Who doesn't say Ikea? But the correct pronunciation is Ikea. Adidas. Everybody says Adidas, the sportswear line, but it's actually pronounced Adidas. The car is a Porsche. It is not a Porsche. It is a Porsche. The drink, Stella Artois. A lot of people pronounce that last S as Stella Artois, but it's Stella Artois. The last S is silent.

And Hermes. A lot of people say Hermes. I've always said Hermes. It's actually Hermes, as in Pez. I didn't know that. That's why that is something you should know. Please share this podcast with a friend. Just send them the link and let them listen. I'm Mike Carruthers. Thanks for listening today to Something You Should Know.

Do you love Disney? Do you love top 10 lists? Then you are going to love our hit podcast, Disney Countdown. I'm Megan, the Magical Millennial. And I'm the Dapper Danielle. On every episode of our fun and family-friendly show, we count down our top 10 lists of all things Disney. The parks, the movies, the music, the food, the lore. There is nothing we don't cover on our show. We are famous for rabbit holes, Disney-themed games, and fun facts you didn't know you needed. I had Danielle and Megan record some answers to seemingly meaningless questions.

I asked Danielle, what insect song is typically higher pitched in hotter temperatures and lower pitched in cooler temperatures. You got this. No, I didn't. About a witch coming true? Well, I didn't either. Of course I'm just a cicada.

I'm crying! I'm so sorry! So if you're looking for a healthy dose of Disney magic, check out Disney Countdown wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, this is Rob Benedict. And I am Richard Spate. We were both on a little show you might know called Supernatural.

It had a pretty good run. 15 seasons, 327 episodes. And though we have seen, of course, every episode many times, we figured, hey, now that we're wrapped, let's watch it all again. And we can't do that alone. So we're inviting the cast and crew that made the show along for the ride. We've got writers, producers, composers, directors, and we'll, of course, have some actors on as well,

including some certain guys that played some certain pretty iconic brothers. It was kind of a little bit of a left-field choice in the best way possible. The note from Kripke was, he's great, we love him, but we're looking for like a really intelligent Duchovny type. With 15 seasons to explore, it's going to be the road trip of several lifetimes, so please join us and subscribe to Supernatural then and now.