The Leadership Paradox: Why Do Incompetents Dominate?

Inspired by Chamorro-Premuzic book that analyzes the phenomenon of the relationship between competence and leadership and points the finger at selection processes: «They reward the wrong qualities»

The Leadership Paradox: Why Do Incompetents Dominate?

In many organizational contexts, we are witnessing a worrying phenomenon: incompetent people or people lacking the right qualities are chosen for leadership roles, while qualified individuals with the right attitudes remain on the margins. This paradox not only damages companies and institutions, but creates an environment in which mediocrity tends to self-perpetuate, to the detriment of innovation, growth and collective well-being.

Rethinking Leadership: How to Overcome Mediocrity in Selection Processes

Introduction

In this article I analyze how to improve leadership selection processes, promoting competence, humility and empathy as key criteria, rather than superficial characteristics such as charisma and self-confidence.

The Limitations of Traditional Selection Processes

Many current selection systems favor leaders who are good at selling themselves, rather than those who are truly competent. Characteristics such as overconfidence and charisma, often considered indicators of leadership potential, are not correlated with competence. In fact, research shows that overconfident people tend to overestimate their own abilities, leading to poor and damaging decisions for the organization.

Case Study: A leader who presents himself as charismatic and confident might be chosen to lead a team, but he or she may lack the technical skills needed to effectively manage the group's work. As a result, the team may become less productive and more prone to error.

The Self-Perpetuation of Mediocrity

A related problem is the tendency of incompetent leaders to surround themselves with people who are similar to themselves, thus contributing to an organizational culture of mediocrity. These leaders, more concerned with maintaining their own status than promoting excellence, tend to reject those who might pose a threat to their position. This creates a vicious cycle in which mediocrity perpetuates itself: the best talents are excluded from top positions, while the less qualified continue to climb the hierarchical ladder, causing lasting damage to the organization.

Practical Example: In many companies, those who are able to operate the "machine" remain in the shadows, while those with a more political and visible but less concrete attitude, gets promotions. This drives away competent people, causing frustration and turnover.

Rethinking Leadership Selection Criteria

To counteract these dynamics, it is essential to rethink the criteria by which leaders are selected. Companies and institutions must put aside the illusions related to charisma and focus on more meaningful criteria, such as competence, humility and empathy.

• Competence: The first criterion should be the proven ability to solve problems and manage complex situations. A competent leader not only has the necessary knowledge, but is also able to apply it effectively.
• Humility: Humble leaders are aware of their own limitations and are willing to listen to others. This makes them more likely to make well-informed decisions and foster a collaborative and open environment.
• Empathy: An empathetic leader is able to understand and connect with the people around him, improving team motivation and the overall well-being of the organization. An empathetic approach reduces anxiety and stress, promoting productivity.

Practical Example: In a technology company, a humble and empathetic leader, while not being the most flashy, could be the one who best manages the dynamics of a complex technical team, fostering innovation and progress through an open approach to discussion and collaboration.

Tips for Improving Selection Processes

To implement a real transformation in leadership selection processes, some key suggestions can be followed:

1. Assess real skills: Introduce practical tests and case studies during the selection phases, which allow you to measure the problem-solving and decision-making skills of candidates, rather than relying solely on interviews or recommendations.
2. Promote diversity: Ensure that leadership positions are accessible to people with different backgrounds and experiences. This will reduce the risk of creating a monoculture and will foster innovation.
3. Create continuous feedback systems: Implement structured feedback from colleagues and subordinates, so that leaders' performance is constantly monitored and evaluated.
4. Eliminate gender bias: Current selection criteria often favor men with “alpha male” traits, such as protagonism and ostentatious confidence. It is necessary to balance this bias, considering female candidates equally, who often appear more competent but less inclined to self-promotion.

Conclusion

If we want to build healthier, more innovative and productive organizations, it is crucial to rethink the criteria for selecting leadership. Competence, humility and empathy must be the new pillars on which to base the choice of future leaders. Only in this way can we break the cycle of mediocrity and build a better future for our institutions.