Beyond Titles: The Disconnect Between Competence and Opportunity

There is no shame in lacking competency, but there is shame in pretending. And furthermore: it is pathetic to not even be aware.

Some people are in certain positions in life because they deserve it. Some people are there by chance because a series of events put them in a position for which they are not qualified and objectively don't deserve. Both are fine, but you must know which one is your case. 

During the last few years, I came to the realization -this won’t surprise anyone- that not everyone is in the position in society that they should be in. This was probably not so clear to me before when I believed that after societies moved away from simpler forms of nepotism, we could assume meritocracy to be embedded organically in any system and the foundation of any hierarchy system. You are probably in a position that makes sense in the overlap of what you want, what you deserve, and what you are capable of. But the more I grew myself into higher leadership positions, and the more I learned about how hierarchies work in the public and private spheres, the more I have seen individuals that are either further down from the position they should be in and others that are totally out of place in a high position that they are not able to defend, but that they still keep somehow. 

I reflected on this a lot in the last few years. And I find it interesting to see how we can distribute these people differently over different dimensions:

• Intentional vs. accidental

• Aware vs. unaware

• Competent vs. incompetent 

• Confident vs. insecure

• Entitled vs. humble

All those aspects overlap in different points to give us output metrics such as legit or not, deserved or not, fair or unfair, reprehensible or commendable.

I’m developing this line of thought to take us to the dichotomy of opportunity and competence, as the title suggests. However, to arrive there, I would like to go over some of the components of the fuzzy Venn diagram that we could draw around this.

Before going into it, let’s take one thing out of the way: the definition or value of luck. I talk about this in a separate article:

Luck or not, my next question is: are you at a place where your steps took you or where the wind took you?

Intentional vs. accidental

Intentional

Let's talk about Sylvana. Sylvana found her way up the corporate ladder and is currently in a position that, objectively, she wouldn’t belong to. This is because she doesn't have the right education, experience, or capacitation and didn’t go through the legitimate process to achieve it. But still, she is there. Connecting the dots backward, there is one thing that legitimizes her position: intent. She made a continuous, intentional effort.

Is it more valuable to be an excellent singer or to be mediocre but number one on the lists and sell-out stadiums? Is it better to produce an excellent wine or a mediocre one that is a best seller and exported worldwide? It depends on what you are after. But definitely, if you have intention, you make the required effort, and you find your way up to where you want to be, there is something commendable about it. 

Sylvana is good at reading the room, finding alliances, influencing, and faking his way around people with enough power to make a difference. Also, she has a couple of skills that can be used as a facade to pretend a broader competence, communicates well, and can calculate meticulously every step. Also understands politics and has a Machiavellian approach to leadership.

We can talk forever about manipulation, deceit, and the moral cost of doing this business, but there is intent, there is effort, and there is a very well-oiled political mechanism. And the intentional, consistent effort worked out. That people overtake from the right. Maybe you were busy doing actual work, while others were busy just working on their position. When you see that person becoming successful, maybe at your own cost, you can hate it, but you understand what happened and even decide there is something you want to learn from it.

Accidental

On the other hand, Felix Luckster's story is quite different. He applied for a position, and the recruitment process was flawed enough to create an odd scenario: the hiring manager, desperate to fill an urgent role, offered Felix a different position on a whim. There was no thorough assessment, proof of relevant experience, or evaluation of his potential to grow beyond the immediate crisis.

Small parentheses: We could talk for a long time about the damage caused by the hiring manager -who has urgency and bias to cover position- having the authority to decide how candidates are evaluated, or being the only person evaluating them, or having an unbalanced weight in the decision. We could also talk forever about the compound effect of hiring managers or interviewers who rely on their intuition, don't follow a well-established calibration framework, or plainly are not good at interviews. It is like not knowing medicine or chemistry, not believing in the professionalization of medicine, and choosing our own medicines based on how the box looks. 

Moving on to Felix, he accepted the role, which involved leading a small team. As time passed, the team expanded. Felix built rapport with his boss not through calculated strategy but by being overly obsequious and compliant to the point of insincerity. He also turned a blind eye to several wrongdoings, further endangering him to his superior, who favored such behavior. This lack of authenticity and integrity damaged his credibility among colleagues but secured his favored status with his boss.

One more small parenthesis: We can refer to a couple of the leadership rules from Maxwell’s 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, such as the law of magnetism (we are surrounded by people who are just like us; for example, if we like to lie about deadlines, we like people who will cover up our lies, not people who will choose honestly) and the law of respect: a leader will have followers that are a bit worst leaders than themselves, people follow leaders that are better than them at least in some dimensions. 

Years later, the flawed promotion system worked in his favor, and Felix was elevated to a higher position. He had not garnered respect from his peers, had no genuine followers, and lacked the trust of key stakeholders. To an observer, his rise seemed entirely accidental rather than a result of deliberate effort. Felix was not a cunning strategist -and one can respect those people- but he was merely someone who ended up in a prominent role by sheer chance, without any intentional planning or skillful maneuvering. Nothing he did to account for it.  

Does it matter?

It does. People will angrily respect intentional achievements -even when delusional or dishonest- but will be disgusted by people getting power over them not only without the right skills but also that connecting the dots, there is nothing to learn from it, nothing to admire from it, and nothing to respect from it. And you should judge yourself in the same way.

No matter where you go, make sure that you are the one doing something to take you there.

Confidence and entitlement

You are in a certain position. You may deserve it or not. Do you act confidently, as if you feel competent, or trying to project that image? Do you treat others like you deserve what you have and can act on it like you can get away with things because of your position or your self-assumed superiority?

Competence versus confidence is a long discussion topic itself. Confidence can be intentional or can be a function of a lack of self-awareness and other factors, probably just an expression of it. For the current discussion, I'm less interested in it. 

Entitlement, however, is a behavior that astonishes me, so I’m more interested in going deeper into it. Both in the cases of actual competency or not, entitlement is a behavior that I believe is probably founded as well on lack of awareness, but -this is my opinion, and I’m not a psychologist- probably with a more significant contribution of more fundamental personality traits:

• Low Agreeableness often leads to less empathy and more competitiveness. People with low agreeableness show less empathy and can be more antagonistic or skeptical of others' intentions.

• Low Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is associated with discipline and diligence, and while high conscientiousness contributes to being focused and stubborn, entitlement may correlate more with low conscientiousness, especially if the individual lacks the discipline to adhere to social norms or the diligence to recognize others' contributions and rights.

• Maybe some aspects of high Neuroticism, people high in Neuroticism may sometimes feel that they are owed more by the world or may use entitlement as a defense mechanism to cope with their emotional instability.

• And probably low Openness. This trait involves imagination, creativity, and Openness to new experiences. It may have less correlation, though individuals who are low in Openness might be more rigid in their beliefs and expectations, which could manifest as a sense of entitlement.

Each case can vary significantly, however, and the interaction of these traits can influence how strongly the entitlement comes across. Oftentimes, a lack of social and professional experience or awareness also helps. We can undress all this a bit: this is what I call being a junior in life, together with being an idiot. 

It reminds me of this case: a few years ago, a person in my team was hired with a very high salary despite being quite junior. He spoke highly of himself and knew all the new technologies. A few days into the job, it was clear to everyone else that he was not as good as he believed. Not only that, but also he was looking at others over the shoulder, being lazy, and not pushing himself too much. One day, he mentioned in a relatively private forum, “If they pay us so much, it is because we are very good.” Or something like that. Pretending that getting a big salary validates that there is an actual reason for it, that your big salary justifies by itself that you deserve a big salary. Spoiler alert: It doesn’t.

The guy was fired shortly after -thus, his salary went to zero-. I kept that in my mind for years to come as a perfect expression of entitlement, lack of self-awareness, and ignorance of the rules of the world that include that others -and not only yourself- will evaluate you and will have a say about your worth. 

Be confident, but don’t act entitled. First, it makes you an idiot, and people don’t like idiots. Second, you will feel like a double idiot if one day you learn you were not as good as you thought. 

And that takes me -finally- to the main point of the discussion. 

Actual competence and awareness

You are in a certain position. Are you competent at it? Do you know if you are competent, and does your perception match reality? In other words, are you self-aware of your own competency?

You may ask, does that matter? Is it not enough to be in a high position? It matters, intentionality matters, and awareness is the foundation for success.

There is no shame in lacking competency, but there is shame in pretending. Furthermore, it is pathetic not even to be aware of what you are.

This is the story of Blunder Boswell. Blunder was placed in a position of power without the necessary skills, and his lack of self-awareness prevented him from recognizing his incompetence. 

Frequently, leaders possess authority over areas they are not experts in. As someone’s authority grows, his or her authority spans new areas, and the broader the breadth, the shallower the depth. The more responsibilities a leader has, the greater their authority but potentially the lesser their specific expertise. This is not bad, but it requires a very precise level of self-awareness to know when to talk and when to, well, shut up.

If this awareness does not exist, and a leader gets confused and thinks that because they have authority over something, they need to intervene, it results in them speaking into areas beyond their competency and trying to direct more knowledgeable employees, which undermines efficiency, undermines morale, and makes the leader look bad and lose trust from everyone around.

Blunder Boswell was leading his whole department, which was next to a hundred people. He was very less experienced but had accidentally landed in a position that gave him high responsibility. He was so out of his area of expertise -if he even had one- that he couldn't even see that his knowledge on the matter was not relevant enough to even get an entry-level or mid-level position. But he believed that being the boss somehow made him the smarter person in the room. 

This is something that always strikes me. How very little you have to know about something to think that the others cannot possibly know more. When you know so little, your world is so small that you cannot even imagine there is anything beyond what you can see. 

Like this, Blunder used to tell more competent people than him what to do. He used to exercise authority in areas where he was incompetent and made any form of work nearly impossible. His team members wished he had stopped talking about things and let them do their work, and his colleagues and stakeholders dreaded interacting with him. But he just kept acting entitled and reminding others explicitly of his authority in the matter as a function of his position. 

Blunder lost trust, created enemies, and was unsuccessful in everything he owned. This was not because he was not competent but because he was not aware. 

So, what is the conclusion?

It is okay to be incompetent, but you must intentionally withdraw from executing your authority and decision-making and trust your teams or other teams to handle matters within their specialized fields. This will enhance overall organizational effectiveness, trust, and employee happiness and will probably allow you to survive when things get serious. 

But for this, you need to be self-aware. If you are not competent, and you are not aware, and yet you are in a position of responsibility, then I’m afraid that faster than you know, you will destroy what you took so little effort to build.

You had an opportunity that, accidentally or not, took you to a position that you don’t deserve. And that’s okay. That alone can be a success story. But if you don't distinguish having the position from having the competencies required for the position, if you think that the position is what gives the competency, if you know so little that you cannot even understand the skills that you are missing and others under you or around you have, then you are delusional and ignorant. 

If you don't know there is a difference between having authority and having the core competencies, you are condemned to fall because people can follow unfair power, but they rarely follow pathetic, unconscious, and unsustainable opportunism.