The clothes may not make the man (or woman), but what about their height? A seemingly silly question, but one that deserves consideration when it comes to leadership. The connection between height and leadership positions is more than coincidental and has been highlighted through various research studies, perhaps most famously in Malcolm Gladwell’s book Blink. Gladwell found that 15% of men (specifically) in the U.S. population are 6 feet or taller compared to nearly 60% of Fortune 500 CEOs.
This correlation between height and leadership has also been found outside of Gladwell’s research. One report, Are CEOs Born Leaders, found CEOs outside of the Fortune 500 are also taller than their non-CEO counterparts landing consistently in the top 5% of the height bracket. Similar results have been found in other countries such as Sweden and the UK.
Not only does this height advantage result in higher positions but higher pay even within the same position, at an average difference of $789 per inch per year or $166,000 in lifetime earnings for someone over 6 feet compared to someone who is 5 feet 5 inches for example. Important implications to be sure.
These data tell us what is happening, but they do not offer great insight as to why it is happening, and it is important to understand why. Who we choose as our leaders has a significant impact on our work and on our lives. Who believes they are capable of becoming leaders has significant impact on our work and on our lives.
Although there is a correlation between leaders and height, there is no such correlation between height and effectiveness of leadership, and it would be ludicrous to suggest that short people cannot lead effectively. Yet as we continue to disproportionately select leaders who are tall, we are simultaneously excluding those who are shorter. The cycle continues, perpetuating a false narrative that tall people must be better leaders because so many leaders are tall. People can use this same disingenuous argument for any number of demographics (men must be better leaders because look at how many leaders are men!)
This bias toward height is just one of the many biases that impact how we perceive leadership and those we deem fit to lead. In addition to height, there is ample research on countless factors such as tone of voice, fitness level, and several other characteristics that impact how we evaluate someone’s ability to lead. John Antonakis has conducted some fascinating research by showing children pictures of political candidates and having them choose which one looks like the better leader. Children chose the winner of each election more than 70% of the time suggesting a potential “leadership look” that appears obvious to children and adults alike.
We hold multiple other biases- conscious or unconscious- when it comes to leadership related to gender, race, age, and ability, just to name a few. We have all heard- and perhaps thought or even said- comments and questions about someone’s ability to lead based on their emotions, energy level, parental status, or perceived intelligence.
In addition to these biases, there is likely a type of self-fulfilling prophecy when it comes to leaders and height. People perceive those who are tall as being more competent, so those who are tall are treated as more competent, thus creating more self-confidence and developing a self-concept as a leader. Each feeds the other in an ongoing cycle where the confidence and perception of competence continue to grow. This holds true for several other characteristics we deem to be attractive and any number of demographics we perceive to be leadership worthy.
It is not someone’s fault if they are tall, of course, and if they receive special treatment because of it. Raising the point is not to blame tall leaders or to punish them for being tall. It is not just about tall leaders either. The point here is to think about and challenge both our perception of others as leaders and our own self-fulfilling prophecies when it comes to height or any other artificial correlate of leadership. Who do we envision when we think about a leader? Who do we dismiss?
It may not be possible to completely erase our unconscious biases, but it is our duty to do all we can to become aware of them and challenge them every time they resurface. In classrooms and stages and sports fields. When we are interviewing or promoting people. It is important to be thoughtful about who we are choosing to lead and why. What about this person makes us think they are a good leader? What about this person makes us think they won’t be? How can we dig a little deeper than I just can’t put my finger on it?
Representation in leadership matters for several reasons. Multiple studies have shown that diverse leadership across multiple demographics contributes to increased productivity, problem-solving, and staff retention. It also demonstrates to current and potential staff that leadership is a viable path for them at your organization. Too often, people do not see themselves as leaders or do not see themselves as leaders at your organization because they do not see anyone like them as a leader or it has been made clear that they are not perceived as a potential leader by you or by your organization.
Perhaps height is not something you personally associate with leadership, but I’m guessing that there is something else that you do. What bias or misperception do you hold about yourself or others that is getting in the way of promoting and developing true leadership? Who comes to mind for you when you think of a leader? Who doesn’t? What perceptions do you need to continue challenging? What ideas do you need to continue advocating for? How do you want to more effectively demonstrate your own leadership?
