The leadership literature is replete with admonitions that successful leadership requires confidence. While that may be true, striving for greater confidence runs the risk of overconfidence. Overconfident leaders put themselves, their teams, and their organizations at risk. There are reasons to be skeptical that greater confidence improves performance, and substantial reasons to worry that greater confidence can undermine preparation. This article offers suggestions to avoid being fooled by overconfident charlatans. It also offers strategies for wise and honest leaders who would like to be both confident and truthful.

A team of researchers found that people who were optimistic about their abilities scored no better than people who doubted themselves on a wide range of tests. And overconfidence, it seems, may even impair performance, especially if it leads to a lack of preparation.

One of the clearest lessons to emerge from decades of research on personnel selection is that the traditional face-to-face job interview is terrible for predicting future job performance. The sad truth is that no selection tool is perfect, and future performance cannot be predicted precisely, but the traditional interview is particularly bad. Fortunately, it is easy to improve the predictive validity of the job interview by structuring it around hard-to-fake tests of key skills and abilities that actually predict future performance. There are also other tools as accurate as a structured interview and substantially less expensive to administer.

Every business decision depends on making a forecast of the consequences of the decision. Although most organizations do forecasting, most do so badly. They ask either for a point prediction-a single "best guess" forecast, when everyone knows that this is an oversimplification of the truth, or for a simple range forecast, which is likely to result in biased predictions more often than not. In this article, the authors propose a better approach, one that takes seriously the uncertainty in forecasting and the most common errors in the way people think about this uncertainty.

Without realizing it, managers delegate unethical behavior to people in their organizations on a regular basis. This occurs whenever someone tells their subordinates to 'do whatever it takes' to achieve production or sales goals, leaving open the possibility of aggressive or even unethical tactics; it happens when companies outsource production to offshore subcontractors that are inexpensive because they are less constrained by costly labor and environmental standards; and it happens when partners at accounting firms remind junior auditors about the importance of retaining a client that has inappropriate accounting practices. In these and countless other situations, people are motivated to overlook the problematic ethical implications of other people's behavior. The result: scandals that can cost trillions of dollars. The good news, say the authors, is that the evidence strongly supports the notion that most people value ethical decisions and behavior and strive to develop the habit of ethicality. Nevertheless, people still find themselves engaging in unethical behavior because of biases that influence their decisions-biases of which they may not be fully aware. Fighting human nature is no easy task, but the authors explain that leaders can and must make the structural changes necessary to reduce the harmful effects of our psychological and ethical limitations.

On July 30, President Bush signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act addressing corporate accountability. A response to recent financial scandals, the law tightened federal controls over the accounting industry and imposed tough new criminal penalties for fraud. The president proclaimed, "The era of low standards and false profits is over." If only it were that easy. The authors don't think corruption is the main cause of bad audits. Rather, they claim, the problem is unconscious bias. Without knowing it, we all tend to discount facts that contradict the conclusions we want to reach, and we uncritically embrace evidence that supports our positions. The corporate-auditing arena is particularly fertile ground for self-serving biases. Because of the often subjective nature of accounting and the close relationships between accounting firms and their corporate clients, even the most honest and meticulous of auditors can unintentionally massage the numbers in ways that mask a company's true financial status. Solving this problem will require far more aggressive action than the U.S. government has taken thus far. What's needed are practices and regulations that recognize the existence of bias and moderate its effects. True auditor independence will entail fundamental changes to the way the accounting industry operates, including full divestiture of consulting and tax services, rotation of auditing firms, and fixed-term contracts that prohibit client companies from firing their auditors. Less tangibly, auditors must come to appreciate the profound impact of self-serving biases on their judgment.