DREIESKIVA​|Roald Kvam

Throughout history, and even in modern organizations, there are countless examples of incompetent individuals ascending to positions of power. This paradox has puzzled researchers, professionals, and the general public alike:

Why do individuals who lack the necessary leadership competencies often find themselves in charge of decision-making, resource allocation, and strategic direction?

A team of researchers led by Stanford University’s Shilaan Alzahawi has attempted to shed light on this phenomenon, uncovering intriguing insights into the link between ambition and leadership ability—or the lack thereof. Their findings suggest that ambition alone is not a reliable predictor of leadership aptitude, yet it remains a driving force behind many individuals’ career advancements.

Let’s explore reasons behind the phenomenon of incompetent leadership, analyzing psychological, organizational, and societal factors that contribute to the problem…

1. The role of ambition in leadership selection

One of the most widely accepted beliefs in corporate and political environments is that ambition drives success. However, the research by Alzahawi and colleagues challenges this notion, demonstrating that ambition does not necessarily equate to competence. When 472 participants in an executive education program were asked to self-report their ambition levels, their peers, subordinates, and managers assessed them on 10 core leadership competencies.

The study found no direct correlation between ambition and leadership effectiveness, suggesting that while ambition propels individuals forward, it does not inherently make them good leaders…

The Dunning-Kruger effect

A psychological explanation for this phenomenon lies in the Dunning-Kruger effect, a cognitive bias in which people with low ability tend to overestimate their competence:

Ambitious but incompetent individuals may be unaware of their shortcomings and, as a result, present themselves as highly capable leaders.

Their confidence can be mistaken for competence, leading to promotions and increased responsibility.

2. Organizational structures that favor visibility over competence

Many organizations have structures that reward visibility and assertiveness more than actual effectiveness. In a competitive environment, those who are outspoken, charismatic, or politically savvy often rise through the ranks, even if their actual leadership skills are lacking.

The Peter principle

One widely discussed theory, the Peter Principle, states that in hierarchical organizations, employees tend to be promoted to their «level of incompetence.» In other words, individuals who excel in one role are promoted until they reach a position where they are no longer effective…

This results in organizations being filled with managers who are not necessarily good leaders but were competent in a previous, often unrelated, function.

Political maneuvering

Office politics play a crucial role in career advancement. Those who excel at networking, forming alliances, and maneuvering through power structures often rise higher than those who focus purely on performance. In some cases, competence takes a backseat to connections and personal branding, leading to the promotion of individuals who lack true leadership ability.

3. Societal & cultural biases

Cultural perceptions of leadership often prioritize traits like confidence, dominance, and decisiveness—qualities that can be displayed even by individuals lacking real competence. This can lead to:

• The illusion of competence: People often assume that someone in a leadership position must have earned their way there through merit, reinforcing the cycle of incompetence.
• Gender & racial biases: Research has shown that certain demographics face systemic barriers to leadership positions, while others may be promoted despite their shortcomings due to ingrained biases.
• Charismatic leadership over effective leadership: Some of history’s most notable incompetent leaders were able to inspire loyalty and enthusiasm despite their lack of real ability, often causing long-term damage in the process.

4. The impact of short-term thinking

Many organizations prioritize short-term results over long-term sustainability. This means that individuals who can deliver immediate, visible success—even at the expense of future stability—are often promoted. Examples include:

• Risk-taking behavior: Leaders who take bold but reckless actions may be rewarded for their apparent decisiveness, even if their strategies ultimately fail.
• Cost-cutting measures: Implementing drastic cost reductions can temporarily boost profits, leading to promotions, but may harm the company in the long run.

5. The lack of accountability & feedback

Many incompetent leaders remain in power because of weak accountability structures. Without proper checks and balances, poor leadership can persist for years, especially when:

• Subordinates fear retaliation: Employees may hesitate to report or criticize incompetent leaders for fear of professional consequences.
• Performance metrics are misleading: If an organization measures success through flawed metrics, incompetent leaders may appear effective.
• Leaders surround themselves with Yes-men: Some leaders eliminate dissenting voices, ensuring that their incompetence is never challenged.

6. Psychological comfort with the status quo

Many organizations resist change, preferring familiar patterns even when they are flawed. This inertia can lead to:

• Preference for “safe” candidates: Decision-makers may choose leaders who fit a certain mold rather than those with true potential.
• Resistance to unconventional thinkers: Truly competent individuals who challenge norms may be sidelined in favor of those who maintain the status quo.

7. The consequences of incompetent leadership

The rise of incompetent leaders can have severe consequences for organizations and societies:

• Low employee morale: Workers may feel frustrated and disengaged under ineffective leadership.
• Financial decline: Poor decision-making can lead to financial instability.
• Ethical issues: Incompetent leaders may engage in unethical behavior to cover up their shortcomings.

8. How to prevent the rise of incompetent leaders

To combat the problem of incompetent leadership, organizations can take the following steps:

• Redefining leadership criteria: Moving beyond ambition and confidence to emphasize proven competencies.
• Implementing 360-degree feedback: Ensuring that leadership evaluations include input from all levels of an organization.
• Encouraging lifelong learning: Providing leadership training and development programs.
• Fostering a culture of accountability: Creating systems where poor leadership is identified and addressed.

---

The paradox of incompetent leadership remains a persistent issue in organizations worldwide. While ambition, visibility, and confidence often propel individuals into leadership positions, these traits do not necessarily correlate with competence.

Psychological biases, flawed organizational structures, and societal perceptions contribute to the rise of ineffective leaders.

By recognizing these patterns and implementing measures to prioritize true leadership ability, organizations can cultivate more effective and competent leaders, ultimately benefiting both employees and stakeholders in the long run.