American View: Why the “Fake It ‘til You Make It” Mentality Should Be Purged

This led to American business gurus becoming infatuated with the idea that psychopaths make the best corporate leaders. Consider these two passages from Jessica Brown’s 2017 BBC article Do Psychopaths Really Make Better Leaders?: “Psychopaths are often considered to be charming, engaging and smooth, due to a lack of self-consciousness which frees them from the inhibitions and worries about saying the wrong thing that can cause others to be more socially awkward.

“… psychopaths have a tendency to engage in risky behaviour without thinking of the consequences. This impulsivity comes from a lack of fear, according to criminal psychologist David Lykke. … Adrian Furnham, professor of psychology at University College London, wrote in a Psychology Today article that highly impulsive people can thrive in fast-paced environments, such as a busy workplace, but they also speak and make decisions without thinking of the implications first.”

Sounds familiar? Consider the people posting their inane hot takes on social media about the Queen’s passing, or the men weighing in on women’s health issues in response to Jessica Valenti’s article. Why are so many people motivated not just to feel confident in their uninformed opinions, but also feel compelled to share those uninformed opinions with the world? Even when doing so is fouling the discourse past the point of being toxic?

Looking at this syndrome from my perspective as a constantly-online-American (once removed), I wonder how many of these counterproductive posters are simply obeying their cultural conditioning: spewing out vacuous opinions with supreme confidence because that’s how they’ve been taught to demonstrate their fitness to lead. Like a dog marking its territory with urine, legions of American men have been encouraged to befoul whatever conversation they’re in with overwhelming noise. The purpose isn’t to change minds, but to stifle conversation. Angering some, demoralizing others, and drowning out opposing voices is often how men build and reinforce their reputation as “strong,” “decisive,” and “deserving” of staying on top.

I find the practice reprehensible, though I understand why it works. I’ve seen this tactic succeed everywhere from the classroom to the boardroom to military HQs. Consider my anecdote from In Bob We Trust about the group commander who confidently insisted we purchase a brand of internal modem cards for our new PCs “because they have chips on both sides!” That jack-wagon didn’t “win” the argument because he was right; his decision became policy because he had more rank than everyone else. Stating a bloody stupid opinion that was obviously wrong as “justification” for his awful decision was how he reminded all his miserable subordinates that he, as their boss, was exempt from any and all expectations of being competent in his role. He didn’t need to be right; his was the only opinion that mattered.

I say all this not to dissuade my fellow posters from saying stupid things on social media. After all, what’s Twitter for if not to make an *#& of yourself in an entertaining way? No, I wanted to talk about this topic because it falls squarely into my wheelhouse: understanding and fixing dysfunctional office cultures. This is a topic I feel genuinely confident speaking about thanks to decades of research: an argument delivered confidently is no more likely to be true, accurate, or helpful that one delivered without. Understanding comes more from listening to (and learning from) experts and people’s lived experiences than from fools making noise solely for performative masculinity. That notion, however, is not what millions of Americans have been taught by their parents, teachers, peers, and preachers about how to “prove” that they’re men.

This is an awful, caustic, and counterproductive behaviour that I feel strongly needs to be excised from the workplace like some sort of noisy tumour. No we can’t revert decades of mental and emotional conditioning. We can, however, create, demonstrate, and enforce social mores within our environment that condemn speaking bollocks solely for the sake of speaking – one of the most common aspects of workplace meetings. Encourage your people to learn and factor their own biases and blind spots. Reward deference to expertise and shun the notion that rank or title is the equivalent of competence. Train your people that confidence without substance is detrimental to sound decision making.

Or, you know, don’t. You can always give the loudest voice in the room pride-of-place and see where that gets you. Odds are, that’s what many of your work centres have been doing for years … and why so many critical projects have failed due to fatally flawed decisions and the critical weakness that underpins the “fake it ‘til you make it” mentality. After all, what’s more important to your organisation? Rewarding certainty? Or succeeding? Personally, I’d rather be part of an organisation whose confidence is based on solid, unassailable knowledge than an impressive but ultimately hollow façade.

[1] If you’re interested in diving deeper into this topic, give Phillipa Gates’ 2008 paper The Three Sam Spaces: The Shifting Model of American Masculinity in the Three Films of The Maltese Falcon a read.

[2] Pun acidly intended.

[3] Emphasis added