Tag Archives: blindspots

Inadequacy versus the Peter principle

Posted on by
3

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:

Joseph: Broken and rebuilt

Posted on by
Reply

God has a way of building character in a young leader with high potential. Often it takes wilderness years, tragedy or failure to break down a young leader and build into him the character needed for high responsibility. In fact, in Leading with a Limp, Dan Allender postulates that a young leader can’t really develop the humility and servant heart required for spiritual leadership if he doesn’t go through those experiences.

As we’ve seen in my previous posts, Joseph lacks the character he will need for huge responsibility, so God breaks him down by taking the bottom out twice over a thirteen-year period. First, he experiences his brothers’ betrayal. After spending time in “distress of soul” in a dry cistern (Gen 42:21), he endures the humiliation of being sold and resold. The resilient Joseph surfaces again, proving himself and gaining responsibility in the estate of the captain of Pharaoh’s guard. Joseph may well relish his independence and fresh start in Egypt, enjoying the luxurious setting and the distance from his dysfunctional family. But God isn’t finished shaping him; for doing the right thing in a time of temptation, he is thrown into prison.

At what point are his rough edges broken off? How does he struggle with bitterness, blame and lack of forgiveness? When does he recognize his motivations, blind spots and the ugliness of his pride? The Bible gives a few clues to his spiritual and emotional journey once he emerges on the other side. In naming his boys, Joseph offers a glimpse of his troubles and the perspective he gains with time: “God has made me forget all my trouble and all my father’s household” (Gen 41:51) and “God has made me fruitful in the land of my suffering” (Gen 41:52). At two points when he’s testing his brothers’ character, he breaks down and weeps (Gen Gen 42:24 and 43:30). Is it simply his joy and relief at seeing his family and evidence of their repentance, or is he personally struggling with forgiveness?

Let’s dig deeper to see how God uses the tragedies, the successes and the prophecy to shape and prepare Joseph to function competently as prime minister of Egypt.

1. Joseph develops faith and integrity
This sheltered young shepherd must develop his own faith and self control in a dark world of loose morals, fleshly attractions, injustice and politics. The temptation to sexual sin is particularly poignant because it exposes roots of self pity, entitlement and bitterness. The scars of his family’s betrayal could have led Joseph to reject their faith and chart his own course. Instead, he taps deeper into his faith in God. Further, this incident of low-hanging temptation was practice for the day that Joseph would bear the responsibility of power and its accompanying ease of access to sin.

2. Joseph learns to be a witness
In this first test with Potiphar’s wife Joseph begins to learn to let his light shine so God receives glory (Matt 5:16). As he refuses to take the bait, he even goes out of his way to mention his faith (Gen 39:9). The fury of Potiphar’s wife—a woman who likely wasn’t used to refusals—may well mask conviction. When he eventually gets an audience with Pharaoh, Joseph uses the opportunity to point him to God (Gen 41:16). By that point, his witness has made a noticeable impression on Potiphar (Gen 39:3), the jailed cupbearer (Gen 41:9) and Pharaoh himself (Gen 41:38).

3. Joseph grows in God awareness
It is the hand of God that steers Joseph into not just any Egyptian household, but the captain of the guard. Not just any prison, but the royal prison. Acts 7:9-10 says God was with Joseph in Egypt “and rescued him from all his troubles.” Likewise, it is the hand of God that gives him success at every stage (Gen 39:2,3,21,23). Seeing God gives Joseph clarity of mind in his first moment of temptation; his sin would be betrayal.

4. Joseph learns to serve
Joseph begins his time in Egypt by attending Potiphar (Gen 39:4) and quickly works his way up to running the entire estate. In the royal prison, Joseph attends Pharaoh’s officials (Gen 40:4). So Joseph learns service before he gets leadership position. As Robert Greenleaf said, “The servant-leader is servant first… That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions” (The Servant As Leader, p50). There are few ways to learn servanthood better than a period of slavery.

5. Joseph learns forgiveness
Dr. Leong Tien Fock says Joseph responded well to the twin tragedies of slavery and imprisonment.

In view of the powerful position he was going to hold, he needed to be put on the receiving end of injustice and suffer much so that he would do justice and love mercy when placed at the giving end of power. The fact that he prospered in both situations showed that he responded positively to the ordeal. If he had been unforgiving and bitter, his life story would have been different.

6. Joseph develops economic, administrative and political skills
Joseph rises in leadership wherever God places him, and as he does, he begins honing the skills that will serve him well in the years ahead. Rev. Bernard Bouissieres says, “Joseph was trained by God in the School of opposition. He became a better administrator in Potiphar’s house, a better manager in prison. He got training for the task ahead.” Likewise, he will certainly use the economics lessons he learns from managing the estate.

He also learns politics and influence. Early on he attracts the investment of a benefactor and potential mentor, and some remnant of that favour guides and guards Joseph throughout his darkest days. While Potiphar has to take action on his wife’s accusations, he maintains a personal interest in Joseph. First, he chooses not to kill Joseph and instead imprisons him with the king’s prisoners—in a facility he oversees. So Joseph continues to serve the captain of the guard (Gen 41:12) and receives special assignments from him (Gen 40:4). Potiphar seems to hold up well to the passages in Scripture urging slave holders to treat their slaves with equity and justice, without ever hinting that they should set them free. But it leads to a complex cultural arrangement that is simply a whitewashed form of perpetuated injustice. While the slave holder gives increasing responsibility and protection, he is unwilling to risk his reputation by releasing his slave. Joseph clearly gains from this arrangement, but I wonder how comfortable Potiphar will feel on the day of reckoning, when Pharaoh will set Joseph free.

No doubt Joseph picks up the written and unwritten rules by observing Potiphar’s household, and even more when he spends years with political prisoners who have fallen out of favour. He learns from what they did wrong, absorbs a lot of the politics and overhears innumerable secrets. Early evidence of his abilities can be seen when he attempts to leverage his interpretation of the baker’s dream to get a quid pro quo. It’s pretty brazen to ask for a shout-out to Pharaoh! But he also learns even more when the baker quickly forgets him; there’s not much leverage from prison.

7. Joseph is tested by the Word
Finally, he is simultaneously encouraged and tested by the prophecy about him. Rev. Bernard says, “How did the dream sustain him in the dark years of waiting? God’s promise to him gave him hope.”

However, Psalm 105:17-19 adds a layer of complexity to Joseph’s vision. When Joseph was sold as a slave,

his neck was put in a collar of iron;
until what he had said came to pass,
the word of the Lord tested him.

In other words, until it came to pass, the prophecy that he would one day rule mocked him. Doubts likely set in, made even more acute by the two-year extension in prison. But Dr. Leong Tien Fock says, “When God’s word finally came true, the ordeal had not only refined his character but also inspired in him the conviction that God had sent him to Egypt for a purpose. For when he revealed himself to his brothers he could comfort them saying, “it was not you who sent me here, but God” (Genesis 45:8).”

When we say that Jesus is Lord and master, we submit to his will, his shaping, his timing. He is the potter, and we are the clay. My personal experience is that God’s methods of leadership development are not mine; they seem circuitous at best. However, the result of God’s process is far deeper, far more effective—and admittedly far more painful—than we would ever choose. But he will accomplish his purposes, and we may see that larger perspective with time.

Joseph series:

Romans 12 – self awareness

Posted on by
1

3 Because of the privilege and authority God has given me, I give each of you this warning: Don’t think you are better than you really are. Be honest in your evaluation of yourselves, measuring yourselves by the faith God has given us.

It happens every year. A young lady shows up on American Idol, sings her heart out… and the judges cringe. When someone informs her that she’s bad, she appears genuinely shocked.* Why? Because her entire life, she’s been told that she can sing. She has never received honest feedback until Simon Cowell.

* Go with me here. I know it’s all rigged.

Do you have a Simon Cowell in your life? Okay, bad example. Do you have someone in your life who has the privilege and authority in your life to tell you the truth? Paul had the ability to say this to the Roman church because of his role as spiritual father and apostle. Perhaps for you it’s a pastor or mentor or Proverbs-worthy friend, but you need people to give you an honest assessment, particularly as you move up in leadership.

What if you’re not really as good a leader as you think you are? This is a tough question, so take a minute to think about it.

I’ve read many times that when a superstar executive is plucked from a team by headhunters to fill a new leadership position in another company, they can’t reach the same success in the new setting. Why? It’s the drumbeat I’ve been saying for some time now: leadership is contextual. You are likely only as good as the team you’re surrounded by and the ideal match of your abilities to the challenges and opportunities you’re facing. Before you take credit for things that God has given you, read Daniel 4 as a warning from King Nebuchadnezzar.

I believe self-management is the first requirement of leadership. The Bible is clear that if you can’t lead yourself, you can’t lead others. The first step, then, is to know yourself. Know what you’re good at and what you’re not. Leaders have as few blindspots as possible and know their weaknesses well so they can lead to their strengths and staff to their weaknesses. But it’s true that the higher you move up in leadership, the more difficult it is to keep from living in a coccoon. There’s no one to tell you the truth, and it’s difficult to stop believing your own press.

The sticking point in these verses to me is that line, “measuring yourself by the faith God has given us.” What does that mean? For starters, if faith is the assurance of things unseen, then our plum line is not anything readily apparent to us. It’s not the media or our kiss-up friends. Our plum line is how God sees us. He’s the one who can see our insecurities and our coping mechanisms. He’s the one who sees past our false bravado. He’s the one who sees how our “courageous decision” was really just a guess, and this time it worked. He knows all that… and more.

Yet he also knows our full operating potential, because he’s the manufacturer. I think God believes in us. When we consider others better than ourselves and are quick to give credit to others for the success we enjoy, I think we’ll uncover a lot of the potential he built in.

Matthew Henry has a great admonition to sum up my last two posts (and this is a nice counterpoint to my recent posts on ambition):

We must not say, I am nothing, therefore I will sit still, and do nothing; but, I am nothing in myself, and therefore I will lay out myself to the utmost, in the strength of the grace of Christ.