Many researchers have duplicated the finding that women are more likely to show less confidence than men. Women are told if they want to make their mark in any field they need to believe in themselves and show confidence like men do.[1] But that may not be best tactic to pursue.
Research showing disparity of confidence based on gender is frequently structured as follows. Men and women of a similar background or education level are given a task, followed by an inquiry of how well they did. Women typically underestimated their performance. But the average male does not correctly estimated his, either. The majority of men are over confident, assuming that they performed better than they actually did. In research based on math problems, Ernesto Reuben, a professor at Columbia Business School, found men consistently rated work about 30 percent better than their real scores.[2]
This trend also occurs in the daily life and the workplace in areas of math, technology, business and finance. Overconfidence doesn’t consistently lead men to success. Overconfident investors trade more often. The average turnover rate of common stocks for men is nearly one and a half times higher than for women. As a result, men reduce profits unnecessarily.[3] University College London research observe that investments run by less confident, and more conservative female managers outperform those run by male managers.[4]
So why do men continue to show overconfidence in face of decreasing results? Ernesto Reuben’s research found that the men who over-rated their ability seem to have honestly convinced themselves that they were better at math than they actually were. Women tend to deviate from the truth by flattering others to make themselves more likable while secretly discrediting others. They used social deception covertly, rather than embellishing their own accomplishments.[5]
Other research has found that more people have high regard for men with unrealistic confidence, despite the cost of this trait.[6] The logical conclusion would be men are rewarded for making unwarranted claims concerning their ability, otherwise they would not keep doing it. Ironically, women are criticized for being “overconfident” and as a result underplay their abilities. The reason for lack of women’s at the top of fields may not be lack of confidence. It may be because as women they simply do not receive the same advantages as men do. According to a recent article in Bloomsberg: “In other words, the “lack of confidence” women display may just be a cold realism, not an inherent character trait.”[7]
One of the traits of leaders that make people want to follow them is that they exude confidence. They seem sure of themselves as if they know their way around and have a plan for where they are going. One of the traits that people dislike about their bosses is that they seem “sure of themselves.” According to 2014 Gallup poll, t
Transformational leadership is a theory based on leaders with a set of skills that inspire followers (typically employees) to value their contribution and therefore work harder. It seems like the perfect answer to increasingly competitive nature of business in a global community. But does it work out as well as it seems to in theory?
People of high charisma are not immune to personal attacks. When there is severe criticism or antagonism leveled at them, they may call on their skill to change the desires of their followers to match their own. Often the critical or antagonistic person is dealt with by the followers not the leader.
Stable personality traits are those which appear throughout most of life. As innate, or inborn traits they are already part of the personality in childhood and become notable characteristics or patterns of behavior in adulthood. However, a person’s perceived level of charisma does not seem to be stable. This is not necessarily because behaviors that increase your ability to influence others can be taught and practiced (similar to taking acting lesson). In studies in which managers were provided with this kind of coaching, changes occurred but these were minimal compared to the difference that already existed between the most and least charismatic people in the group.
We see political leaders that have been coached to appeal to the masses on television. They carry themselves erect (confident in the clothes, hair and makeup that their stylist has spent hours on). They smile warmly and expressively, acknowledging associates they recognize in the crowd (who may or may not exist). They speak with authority (having spent many hours listening to their own voice with the assistance of a coach). However, if you want to appeal as a leader that is actually present with a group of people, a different set of skills can make or break your ability to lead. You must be able to identify with the group you are speaking to and show that you are trustworthy and competent.
Look though recent articles on leadership and you will find that creativity to be in high demand. IBM’s Institute for Business Value conducted a survey of 1,500 chief executives and discovered that creativity had risen to top as the most valuable attribute of a leader. The ability to generate new idea, and solve problems creatively has become the new competency that is supposed to ensure the success of a business in tight economic times. 
Ask the average Joe on the street what makes a good leader and a frequent answer will be high confidence. But that is only part of the equation. 
One of the buzz words used to promote teaching managers charismatic behavior is transformational leadership. It is touted as the next generation improvement on the old standby, transactional leadership. Transactional leadership is based on providing extrinsic motivators. In other words transactional leaders provided more rewards for better performance. A contingent reward system apparently works up to a certain point and then no more. Perhaps the employees are satisfied with their current recompense, or find the rewards are not worth the effort. Most likely employees don’t want to consume their entire life with work.
