In a previous post, my attempt toward brevity about inadequacy proved to be inadequate. A discerning reader asked, “What about the Peter principle”? Another said, “In my experience far more damage is done by those who think they are competent but are not. They boldly pursue strategies which are poorly planned and do much damage. They are not insecure but instead are overconfident.”

Based on the reactions, we need to dig deeper into the Peter principle and the issues of incompetence and inadequacy. I’ll admit this post is a bit unpolished, but if I delay getting a response out, I’ll miss the moment.

According to Wikipedia, 

The Peter principle is a concept in management developed by Laurence J. Peter which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to “a level of respective incompetence”: employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent.

The entry goes on to say that Peter’s book by that name was intended to be satire, but his principle has endured to explain any shortcoming in management. 

Let’s look at the core comparison and how the principles I was discussing differ.

Incompetence

The tag of “incompetent” is often used to imply someone is totally unfit for a responsibility, but in reality, someone who has been appointed to a role has clearly demonstrated some level of competence; the level of promotion is simply not the right fit. As Wikipedia’s entry goes on to say, “skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another.” 

It can be a situation where the competencies at one level simply weren’t applicable at the next. I’ve blogged before about how general administration doesn’t necessarily flow out of line management because the skills are so different (see The ladder for generalists and What gets you there won’t get you here). Promoting for an administrative position requires defining specific competencies for a role and then watching for indicators that an individual possesses them or has an aptitude for them. Those indicators may actually be stronger at the next level down rather than the level immediately below the position in question. Or available in a lateral position, perhaps in a different form. 

There’s always a level of guess work whether someone will be able to match the competencies required at the desired level of responsibility. And that leads to the examples we so often think of: someone promoted to a position for which they lack the competencies to succeed.

Inadequacy

According to Wiktionary, this refers to a sense of falling short of what is enough; deficient or insufficient for a particular role. In a leadership context, this gap between performance and expectations could be related to capabilities and skills (incompetence), but could also stem from other factors: inadequate resources, tools, support or effort. It can be circumstantial or temporary; someone can be adequate in some areas but inadequate in a specific moment, perhaps under a pressure situation.

Let me give an example of situational inadequacy. I think we can all remember typically-strong leaders struggling during Covid. Many felt deficient or, perhaps with forward thinking, deferred the burdens of leadership during that crisis. After all, any decision made by pastors, CEOs or political leaders led to heavy criticism—then and even now as political vendettas are enacted. I think of Covid leadership along the lines of “dog years.” Each one aged us at least double the normal rate.

In the best of times, leadership is an impossible task. In Leading with a Limp, Dan Allender points out the unreasonable expectations most people have for their leaders: physically attractive, charismatic public speakers, humble and tough, “yet we want him to tear up over a sad story and be sentimental on Mother’s Day” (27). Many potential leaders see the expectations and costs and decide to opt out because they either don’t feel they measure up, or don’t want the cost. 

There are a host of articles on a rising trend of Gen-Zers refusing to aspire to leadership positions. They call it “conscious unbossing.” As Simon Sinek is fond of saying, if it’s one or two people, they need to change. But if it’s a whole generation, we need to pay attention to their demands.

Reluctance

Allender wouldn’t disagree with their conclusion to avoid leadership. He says that “flight is the only sane response to the offer of a leadership position.” But rather than letting that be the final word, he argues that reluctance is a valuable quality in a successful leader. 

“When we’re reluctant to lead, doubting ourselves and our call, we are ripe for growth as a leader” (15), Allender says. “Why does God love the reluctant leader? Here is one reason: the reluctant leader is not easily seduced by power, pride, or ambition” (18). Reluctance leads to humility; the leader is forced to depend on God, gives away power as a way to share the risks and sets up successors to surpass herself without feeling threatened. 

Throughout Scripture, God calls and equips leaders who initially decline the role, but he often makes specific promises or provisions to help make that man or woman successful. Those of us who are developing leaders, planning for succession or hiring a manager should consider what resources, tools and support are needed to give confidence to a leader who sees himself as inadequate. (This is a big topic on this blog. For a couple of examples, see Why reluctance part 1: fear of failure and Lending your influence)

What if they are actually incompetent or inadequate?

What happens when an “incompetent” person believes he is competent? Or someone believes he has what it takes but clearly doesn’t? Blind spots and overconfidence are easy to develop without intentionality in gathering feedback. Here are some ideas:

• Before you lead others, start with self awareness. There are tools like the Johari Window and 360 reviews that can help you evaluate yourself. See Romans 12 – self awareness for more.
• When taking a leadership position, make sure you have at least one person you trust who has been given permission to tell you what you can’t see and perhaps don’t want to hear. I unpacked this one in Suspect yourself.
• If you’re preparing to appoint someone to leadership, make sure they can manage themselves first (and Paul would add, those closest to him – see 1 Tim 3:4). 
• And if you’re overseeing another leader, watch for indicators of overconfidence while also developing channels to hear early feedback from their direct reports.

In my experience, a truly-inadequate leader is either appointed prematurely, out of desperation or by default, whereas an incompetent leader may have been appointed for other reasons than qualification for the job. For instance, success in previous jobs. In some hierarchies, it can be a situation of “next man up” based on seniority and experience. Or someone presents an image in an interview or CV that they can never live up to. Whatever the cause for an inappropriate promotion, the impact on direct reports and the unit being led is the same: a poor-fitting leader hurts a team or organization through his or her incompetence. 

In addition to hurting others, keeping a person in a poor-fitting role can destroy him. It can erode his confidence and set back his development irreparably. Obviously, while God has used many inadequate leaders, it only works when they realize their weakness and lean heavily on the God whose power is a game changer in making us sufficient. 

I hope it’s obvious that courageous action needs to be taken quickly to limit the damage.

Three case studies

1. Recall the first episode of Band of Brothers, when Easy company leaders came to realize that Captain Sobel’s incompetence was likely to get them killed when the shooting got real. He was extremely effective at pushing a unit to high levels of physical and mental fitness, discipline and logistics, but he was completely deficient at field combat and tactics. He should never have been promoted, but he was caught by surprise when his men rebelled. When he was removed from his position and moved to providing parachute training, he did an excellent job, and even made it into combat at a later point. The Wikipedia article shows a mixed review of men who served under him, including some who credit him for Easy Company’s toughness and cohesion.

2. Most people would say that the apostle Paul had the skills and competencies needed to fill his particular role in the fledgling first-century church. His training and preparation was impeccable, he was articulate and bold, and he had the ability to engage a wide range of audiences—both Jews and Greeks, and both poor and powerful—as he argued the tenets of the faith. It was as if God knew none of the 12 apostles had the specific competency set that was needed to grow the church, so he specifically called one of his enemies (Acts 9).

Yet, as Alistair Begg and Allender argue, Paul never forgot that he had killed Christians in his previous life and was very conscious of his current tendencies—to the point he called himself the “chief of sinners” (1 Tim 1:15). He spent a lot of time in his two letters to the Corinthians discussing his insufficiency. Here are two specific passages to reflect on:

Such confidence we have through Christ before God. Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. (2 Cor 3:4-5) 

But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Cor 12:9-10)

Allender’s conclusion is that “Paul did not hide his failures or defend or rationalize his choices. He led in a way that required grace to be more real than his competency” (53).

3. If inadequacy is a reality, not just a perception, a reluctant leader is more likely to be unashamed to walk away. If power and ambition weren’t the goal, the acceptance of a job mismatch is much easier. I recently observed this myself when an organization CEO approached his board in the middle of his first term and proposed stepping away because he didn’t believe he could deliver what the organization needed at this moment. It’s an unfathomably bold step, because it gives the impression that both the individual and the board failed. He had been appointed after an exhaustive search, after all. But when someone cares far more for the organization and the people he leads than his own reputation and how he might be perceived, the organization and the people benefit. I have huge admiration for the courage it took to acknowledge and accept this conclusion.

Of course a midstream correction has a cost, but consider the alternative: what if this leader felt he was adequate for the position while failing to deliver? What would be the cost if a leader stayed who wasn’t what they needed?

Wrapping up

That is my broad attempt to explain the difference between inadequacy and the Peter principle. No doubt there are gaps in my logic; in fact, there are a number of threads that could use more unpacking or deeper thinking. Let me know your thoughts about reluctance, the Peter principle and feelings versus realities of inadequacy.

---

Related blog posts:

• Inadequate, insecure and in charge
• The root of insecurity
• If everyone is insecure, what can we do about it?
• Inadequacy and the Peter principle