The Power of Incompetence and
Powerlessness of the Competent
T. V. Rao
I always wondered if most Chairpersons, CEOs, MDs,
Presidents, CXOs, CHROs really and genuinely interested in recruiting and using
competent people as peers (colleagues at same level) or juniors at immediate next
levels. Often good leaders are advised to be great leaders by getting team members
more competent than them and when they choose employees more competent than
them, the organizations really prosper. I have begun to feel that this remains
mostly in theory and rare to find people like Dr. Vikram Sarabhai or Ravi Matthai
or Abdul Kalam who are highly secure (emotionally) Institution Builders and always
respected competence, recruited competent people and left them free to build institutions.
As late Dr. Kamla Choudhry postulated Dr. Sarabhai and Matthai spotted competent
people and built Institutions or centers around them.
Today it is perhaps rare to find such people and phenomena. It
seems that no leader (CEO/CHRO/CXO or equivalent) would want to have more
competent people around them as almost all of them be afraid of losing credit and
fear of getting drowned in the glory of the competent colleagues or juniors. Only
family family-owned business heads who made already a great success and
achieved peak of emotional security seem to show this capability. Almost all leaders
now a days want to maintain their supremacy and believe the only way to do that
is by having normally less competent people around them.
I must clarify what I mean by competence- it is not necessarily
domain competence but it could also mean attitudinal, emotional or style or some
form of inadequacy that makes an individual more acceptable to their seniors but
less impactful on juniors or others. Competency
is defined as knowledge, attitudes, skills, self-concept, emotional intelligence,
values, traits etc. In academic world, I know the heads of many Institutions
including those of some premier Institutions who ensure that positions a of
importance is held by people who are less competent or at least have one
weakness or the other which gives them a good handle of control over these
leaders. For example, one Director always chose a “yes person” as his Dean or
Head of the Department wherever he had choice. Some others recruit competent
people and make them incompetent either by over boosting of their ego to a
level of dysfunctionality, or pumping too much of their vision and styles and
leave little choice for the person to use his/her other competencies. A
Chairman went to search all over the world for a good CEO of International
repute and pumped into is head a lot of ego that made the CEO partially incompetent
by becoming rigid and exercising a high ego. He in turn chose an “Yes Person” as
his next level and delegated whatever suited him. Recently when a reputed Industrialist became the
Chairman of an academic Institute and needed to choose a committee to assist
him to rejuvenate the Institute, he chose a few members from his Board who either
belonged to his fraternity or popular names and completely ignored members with
domain expertise who could give him good inputs. It may not have even occurred to
him that there are competent people. Normally the choice of the team member is
based on one with who o feel comfortable rather than one who can contribute.
That is where competence becomes powerless and incompetence becomes powerful. Remember
the article that appeared in Harvard Business review on Competent jerks and
Lovable fools (HBR, June 2005) The authors proposed that normally when people must
choose people to help them at work, they use likeability over competence as a criterion.
Many CHROs make sure that they don’t have highly competent HR Managers. or tend
to choose who can surpass them as it will lead to ego clash or sharing of
credit. This also explains the reason why there is no succession planning in
most organizations including the PSUs and PSBs despite the need for the same
being felt for the last over two decades. This is simply because of the “fear
of competent overshadowing the incompetent”. So, Incompetence wins and the
competence is shelved and sometimes retires unnoticed.
I would like now to turn the argument round to say that that
it is not to your advantage if you are highly competent person. You should have
some incompetence with you to be chosen to work with. One of the incompetencies
is lack of time. There are some leaders who volunteer or get appointed as members
of the Board, or Advisory Board, or Task Force, Committees etc. Once in it, they rarely attend meetings as
they are very popular and busy people. These busy and popular people re
normally chosen as they rarely attend meetings and happily lend their name for
the final report. This is another form of incompetence preferred by leaders. The
Chairman of these committees want to feel that they have a “High Powered “Committee
(who never attended any meetings! For example, if you form a search Committee
to find the next president of a professional body or the Director of an institution
what are your criteria? First criteria is the person who should have good track
record and credibility. Second criteria are the person should have domain familiarity
and some domain knowledge or some experience in search for competent people. A
rarely asked question is on the interest of the candidate and time he/she can spare.
I have seen many committees where the report is almost written by the Chairman or
Secretary and few of his cronies and the Committee is used to give an online
approval. What do you consider such type of members who give their “yes” response
and feel happy to be called members of the Committee? I call them also incompetent
people as their competence is not available to be put to use.
When five of us worked for the HR Committee of the Ministry
of Finance called as Khandelwal Committee, there were five of us members: A IT
Professor from IIT and a member of Bank Board, Another Private sector bank ED,
A Successful Chairman of Bank of Baroda, Chairman of another bank and Chairman
of the IBA, and a HR Expert. I understand that we were carefully chose. We
worked for six months visited all Nationalized banks and held detailed discussions.
At one time, we divided ourselves to look at our special areas of domain
competence (for example a IT specialist looked at IT issues, strategy specialist
looked strategies and so on). Of course, we also had ex-officio members who may
not have attend all meetings but kept them I the loop all the time by continuously
circulating minutes. This one committee report
that was accepted almost in toto for implementation.
Most of the time I have begun to feel that to be competent and
aggressive is a disadvantage and you may be discredited as a difficult person
to deal with or sometimes a person who only makes notice and may not have much
to contribute. The at means your competence has made you powerless and you
should have been incompetent in a way that the other members feel more secure
to have you as a member. However, if you are too timid and shy and are not
noticeable even if you are competent in many ways you may be kept out. If you are
competent and shy you are incompetent. If you are competent and aggressive,
again you are incompetent. Your competence makes you powerless. Your competence
should be only to the level that makes others feel secure. The challenge is to be incompetently competent
or competently incompetent? A competent jerk who is lovable? Or a Lovable fool
who is competent?
Dr. T.V. Rao, In this blog, you've placed your hand on the pulse of scarcity mentality prevailing in the mindsets of key decision makers of corporate sector, public sector and NGOs.This is story of every organization and at all organizational levels. For CEOs, MDs, Chairmen, Chairpersons, COOs, personal loyalty is the overriding/domineering factor in selecting people in their senior management team. They need people who can make them feel good and endorse their follies with smiling faces.That is why, competent people or independent thinkers leave a bad taste in their mouth.Consequently,the aggregate intellectual caliber of the whole organization experiences a nose dive leading to loss of talented people which translate to poor service delivery by the organizations. The profits fall and organizational image go to the dogs but people at the top are least bothered. They're kept busy by incompetent sycophants who keep on massaging their inflated egos. You've rightly said that the board members just have their symbolic presence. They're alienated from organization's operations and see what the chief executive shows them. They again select Chief Executive Officers that share with them only the GOOD NEWS and consider the symbolic presence of board members of elite class as substantial contribution. Please keep on blogging the whole truths as a warrior that you are because we've many gurus who just speak the half-truths and portray them as wholesome truths. Long Live Dr. T.V. Rao. (Comment by Atif Tufail, working as Chief Human Resource Officer in Pakistan)
ReplyDelete