The CEO decision at Pfizer is a horrible example, if you ask me. All we know is that one manager was perceived as assertive and occasionally "abrasive" while th

The CEO decision at Pfizer is a horrible example, if you ask me. All we know is that one manager was perceived as assertive and occasionally "abrasive" while the other one was "fair" and then when the abrasive guy was picked, they conclude it was because of his "toughness" because some random analyst said so. There could be a million different reasons why he was picked over her. For one, it might simply be discrimination from the owners and/or share holders or one particularly influential share holder. Or he was better connected and/or was playing politics better than she did. Or for many other reasons... And the other study just showed how a first impression will influence how we perceive people. They have absolutely nothing backing up the theory that a "fair" manager will lose to an "unfair, tough" manager in promotions. If you ask me, they are missing quite a few links and connections in their theory and are mixing correlation with causation.