Tag Archives: indicator

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:

What successful traits then look like now: Shrewdness

Posted on by
2

In this series, we’re considering the question: how could a mission organization identify potential C-suite leaders 15 years before it needs them? What competencies do you look for, and what do the early version of those competencies look like?

The working theory I’m exploring is that you should look for evidence of early indicators of megacompetencies. I’ve covered resourcefulness and servant heart. The third one I want to propose is:

3. Shrewdness

This one has potential dangers. There are a lot of negative connotations to shrewdness, so stick with me as I unpack it. Certainly, shrewdness can suggest a cunning, conniving, deceitful and devious person. But I believe shrewdness itself is contextual, a competency that in itself is not good or bad, but overlays character. To someone of honesty and purity, shrewdness can add impact to the good they pursue. To someone of rotten character, shrewdness can make their evil formidable.

The critical point for me is that on two occasions, Jesus tells his followers they should be shrewd. Because that point is worth unpacking, I will explore the Biblical view of shrewdness in another post.Okay, with that as a foundation, let’s look at the competencies within shrewdness. I’m essentially breaking down and redeeming negative traits like “cunning,” “conniving,” “crafty,” “calculating” and “conspiring”:

  • Strategery. I’ve adopted the term President George W. Bush coined to noun the verb strategize. There are two primary components to this quality:
    • Foresight: The ability to get up on the bridge and see the horizon in order to set the ship’s direction. This includes elements of abstract thinking, taking the broad view and not being bound to the current strategy.
    • Thinking and planning: The ability to anticipate and plan the steps and stages to get to that horizon, including anticipating and getting around perceived obstacles.

While few leaders may have both versions of strategery, both are useful elements of senior leadership, which mixes vision with implementation. And both can be noted early in young leaders. Look for those who are always asking “why?” and interested in context, the bigger picture. Look for those who are especially resourceful, who can negotiate tradeoffs or break down game theory. Yes, maybe there’s more to gamers than we give them credit for!

  • Street smarts. There’s an old military adage of disputed origins that was best summed up by Mike Tyson, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” So, as important as planning is, the question is how you adapt and roll with the punches. Street smarts brings wisdom to ground level and includes the ability to intuitively read an environment, handle situations with common sense and find a way through challenges. For those working in missions or other expatriate settings, such savviness may equate to cross-cultural adeptness. Of course, those with street smarts don’t necessarily play by the well-established game rules, and therefore you can anticipate the friction between this person and a system-protecting manager.
  • Creativity. Creative people find a way to do what needs to be done, which involves considering alternatives, seeing opportunity and taking risks. They may have a comfort with uncertainty and a wide-ranging set of interests. In fact, the ability to think laterally or draw applications from other fields that haven’t been tried in this field before might lead to a reputation for being “offbeat.” The challenge for senior leaders is to notice those who may be on the fringes and invite them into the center in order to harness their creativity for the good of the whole.
  • Timing. Shrewdness comes with an uncanny sense of timing. The right idea at the wrong time is just as likely to fail as the wrong idea itself. Successful entrepreneurs and breakthrough leaders are opportunistic in the best sense of that word. So watch for people who have an intuitive sense of the proper moment for change. But recognize that, early on in a career, such people may lack the courage or support to act on such instincts. That’s where a senior leader may be able to provide a safety net.
  • Influence. The DISC test affirms Influence as a legitimate leadership style. Those who shape the environment and win people over have innate understanding of interpersonal relationships and high emotional intelligence. When skilled, these people can be very persuasive. Patrick Lencioni calls this working genius “galvanizing”: the ability to figure out the wins for others and rally others to act on ideas. While influencers can certainly fall into manipulation and deceit, there are all kinds of positives to this trait. Look for indicators of it, even the unskilled or abused forms of it, and tap those traits for good.

At the beginning of this month I had a chance to watch a bit of track cycling at the velodrome in Japan. I had no idea just how cerebral some of those cycling races are. The sprints are a cat-and-mouse game, sometimes going incredibly slowly and then opening up to a frenetic scramble for the finish line. The omnium, with its many ways to make points or avoid elimination, requires a mix of: strong, pre-planned strategy; keeping track of other competitors; street smarts; agile reactions; opportunistic timing and the cunning use of small openings. Watching the British rider Matthew Walls pull ahead and then hold off the opposition over the four events of the omnium gave me a vivid picture of shrewdness.

When Jesus said his followers should be shrewd in Matthew 10:16, he made an important pairing: “be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.” Manipulative, deceitful individuals are not harmless or innocent. But there is a shrewdness that’s rightly directed toward good, that comes out in good business sense and savvy maneuvering of a Christ-follower in this present age. That edge is something that helps in senior leadership, and the signs of its presence are evident much earlier if you’re alert for them.

So that perhaps brings me to the end of this series, unless I missed something. Now I want your input. What megacompetencies did I miss? What other early indicators should we look for in a future C-suite leader?

Megacompetency Series

Shrewd Series

What leadership traits then look like now: Servant heart

Posted on by
Reply

In this series, the challenge we’re considering: how could a mission organization identify potential C-suite leaders 15 years before it needs them? What competencies do you look for, and what do the early version of those competencies look like? I think this has relevance to other industries as well, because the competencies we’re considering would benefit every industry.

The working theory I’m exploring is that you should look for evidence of early indicators of megacompetencies. Last post, I covered the first megacompetency, resourcefulness. The second one I want to propose is:

2. Servant heart

There’s a glut of articles on servant leadership, so I won’t add to their number here. However, we’re talking about early indicators, and Robert Greenleaf himself said that the servant leader should be servant first. So it’s important to break down servanthood itself.

Early experiences shape a leader’s approach to problems, working with teams and handling of authority. The approach of numerous biblical leaders was shaped by years of serving, including Joseph, Aaron and Nehemiah.

Let’s park here for a minute before we get to the competencies. Attitudes and character are not the same as competencies. As I’ve written before, leadership training should never be given to someone who lacks character. Nothing builds character like serving, and nothing reveals character like being treated like a servant. A servant heart comes out in attitudes and attributes such as humility, selflessness and longsuffering (an archaic, but revealing way to articulate patience).

Now, those attitudes may not be evident in young leaders, because they are often developed by experience. How many brash, overconfident young people do you know who emerge from crisis, failure or loss with a greater maturity, self control and wisdom? The apostle Peter comes to mind. But there are some who are wired for service (Enneagram 2, for instance), transformed by the Holy Spirit or raised in conditions that hone early development of a servant heart.

But what makes servanthood a megacompetency? Let’s look at some of the specific competencies of a servant.

“As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a female slave look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.”

Think of period pieces like the TV show Downton Abbey or the film, Lee Daniels’ The Butler. Picture a banquet table, with beautiful table settings and guests seating arrangements carefully planned. The servants stand still on the periphery of a room, trying not to be noticed, but where are their eyes focused? On their master’s hands, looking for the slightest indication of need before it can be expressed. Servants are good listeners, empathetic, with high levels of awareness and emotional intelligence. My wife and I refer to this trait as “radar” and long to build it into our kids so they will notice a door that needs to be held for someone, a car full of groceries that needs to be unloaded, or a person carrying a heavy load that could use some help.

  • Attentive. This is related, but I want to list it separately to draw out additional competencies:  reliability, trustworthiness and diligence—to listen to, carry out and follow up detailed instructions. One way to describe this attentiveness might be to call them a student of their master or boss.

Attentiveness also touches on proximity. An attendant by definition keeps his or her position by the master’s side. In a 1990 study of successful executives, John Kotter identified one of the most important leadership development opportunities as “visible leadership role models who were either very good or very bad.” A young leader can draw his or her own conclusions from close experience with another leader, so back-stage access combined with attentiveness will accelerate a leader’s development.

  • Prescient. The best servants don’t even require an indication of need, because they know the need before it happens. They are prescient—but in the sense of having foresight, not clairvoyance. Through study and paying attention over time, they know how their master operates and what his or her preferences are. Early indications might be commitment, loyalty, curiosity and a deep interest in people.
  • Forbearing. Another archaic word with no modern equivalent. Collins Dictionary says, “Someone who is forbearing behaves in a calm and sensible way at a time when they would have a right to be very upset or angry.” A servant has to have thick skin. In The Butler, protagonist Cecil Gaines mostly succeeds at ignoring or shrugging off slights and racist comments made in his presence while maintaining a functional working relationship with eight successive presidents from both parties and a wide range of personalities. Yes, this characteristic becomes more prevalent with age, but not exclusively; well before he began working at the White House, Cecil Gaines—and Eugene Allen, the real butler his character  is based on—had gained these skills by growing up on a plantation.
  • Stewardlike. Chuck Bentley at Crown Financial Ministries says that, while there are behavioral characteristics in a steward, the definition is simple:

“A good steward is someone who doesn’t see their own life, money, and possessions as their own.”

It’s often been observed that renters treat property differently than owners. But stewards are qualitatively different. They see their role as caretakers of someone else’s property, company, organizational unit or staff, but treat them in the way they would if they were owners. In a steward, you might find early indicators of competencies like duty, resource management, resourcefulness, and employee care and development.

If you want to find a leader for the future, look among your servants. But you will have to look; the problem with seeing potential in servants is that they don’t stand out. They can get typecast and limited because leaders don’t see or allow for their potential. For many years I wondered how cupbearing could have prepared Nehemiah for a governorship, and I resolved that question in my blog post From “lording servants” to “stooping lords”—which is probably my most extensive reflections on servanthood and servant leadership.

Servant heart is important to cover before I get to the next megacompetency, because this one gets at issues of character. My next one is easily misunderstood, and I’ve seen very little written about it.

Megacompetency Series

What leadership then looks like now: Resourcefulness

Posted on by
2

So the challenge we’re considering: how could a mission organization identify potential C-suite leaders 15 years before it needs them?

I covered the first part of the challenge in my previous post. The second challenge is to figure out what competencies to look for, and what the early version of those competencies might look like. How do you spot this kind of talent? The mission leader who proposed this challenge had a theory that you look for evidence of megacompetencies. These are broad competencies that are themselves a collection of competencies. He believes that makes it easier to watch for and cultivate early indicators. 

I want to propose three over my next three posts.

1. Resourcefulness

In the book, Topgrading, Brad Smart explores the ruthless leadership theory deployed by Jack Welch at GE: grade your executives each year and cut the bottom performers. I am not a fan of that ultra-competitive approach, and Simon Sinek offers a blistering critique of such finite thinking in The Infinite Game. However, I find Smart’s exploration of the competencies of “A players” to be helpful. Number one on his list:

Resourcefulness refers to your ability to passionately figure things out, like how to surmount barriers… It is a composite of many [competencies]: Intelligence, Analysis Skills, Creativity, Pragmatism, Risk Taking, Initiative, Organization/Planning, Independence, Adaptability, Change Leadership, Energy, Passion, and Tenacity.

So, if you need resourceful leaders in the future, how do you spot these competencies now? They can be seen in the way kids play, in the way students juggle competing responsibilities, in the way young leaders approach challenges. As a matter of fact, resourcefulness can show up very early in life. For instance, consider Rex Davis. While his mother was showering, this 2-year-old grabbed the car keys, left their locked motel room, got into the car and started it up. Unfortunately for him, it was a manual transmission car parked in first gear, so when Rex started the car without stepping on the clutch, the car lurched forward—through the front wall and into the motel room. While police were investigating the accident, this “precocious” 2-year-old found the keys again and climbed back into the car. I suspect Rex Davis will be one to watch for the future.

But here’s the rub: early demonstrations of resourcefulness may look to managers like disobedience; not accepting a firm “no” and making an end run around the bureaucracy. Some of these unskilled expressions will be intensely frustrating to a manager who simply needs the job done. In those cases, it’s up to the senior leader to intervene and create appropriate expressions for those characteristics.

Megacompetency Series

What gets you there won’t get you here

Posted on by
1

11 years ago, the president of a mission networking organization approached me with an interesting challenge: He wanted to help the network’s member organizations develop candidates for the C-suite* 15 years from now. But how do you help mission agencies recognize high-level leadership traits early?

Now, if you’ve read What Got You Here Won’t Get You There, you know that many of the leadership skills and aptitudes that get you noticed or even help you succeed at lower levels of leadership are not the same as those needed for senior-level leadership. In fact, some of them might actually block your promotion path. So, if that’s the case, the converse might also be true: what gets you there might not get you here. What if the competencies that might make someone an excellent CEO, Senior VP or VP are actually skills that won’t advance your career early on? What if they’re not even appreciated at the lower levels in an organization?

What does a young person do with skills, interests or abilities that are not encouraged, or perhaps even suppressed? Some might hide those dreams, those desires for bigger picture thinking, those challenging questions. Others attempt to nip them in the bud, attempting to stifle the development of “negative traits.” In other cases, those traits become major sources of frustration—for the individual or for his or her boss.

Thankfully, Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln emerged successfully from their early failures, losses and frustrations.

In other words, the ladder to high level leadership may not actually pass through typical lower levels of leadership. What if, instead of suppressing certain competencies, we drew them out and developed them independently of a young person’s current role, simply to prepare a future leader for the future? The working theory of the mission leader who approached me was that future C-suite leaders cannot be developed within the organization; in order to develop skills for a generalist leadership role, they need to participate in a cohort with others like them outside their organizations.

Think about your organization. Are you likely to encourage and develop C-suite kind of thinking and behaviour when it has no immediate benefit to the organization or the role that person currently fills? Do you provide outlets for these kinds of leaders? What could you do to ensure that their frustration doesn’t boil over and some other organization ends up benefitting from their leadership 15 years down the road?

But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Before you can develop skills for the C-suite, you have to recognize those high-potential individuals in the first place. In my next post, we’ll look at the second part of this challenge: what do the early roots of C-suite leadership look like?

*The C-suite refers to all the “Chief” roles: Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief HR Officer, etc.

Megacompetency Series