Why do we unconsciously select less competent leaders?

Indonesia recently witnessed significant protests over the government's controversial decision to amend laws believed to entrench President Joko Widodo’s authority. However, this article isn’t about Indonesian politics; instead, it delves into a broader philosophical inquiry: Why do morally questionable individuals often ascend to leadership roles?

We’ve all contemplated this at some point, whether regarding a president, a manager, a project leader, or even a colleague. Despite recognizing that others may be more capable, those individuals don’t always occupy leadership positions. This stems from the fact that leadership encompasses more than mere skills; it fundamentally involves the mechanisms by which individuals acquire power.

How do individuals attain leadership positions?

Many of us have experienced the consequences of poor leadership — disengagement, mistrust, reduced productivity, and heightened stress levels. However, it's essential to acknowledge that leading is inherently challenging.

Occupying a position of authority comes with risks. Being at the top makes one vulnerable and often the focal point of scrutiny. Like a caterpillar on a tea leaf, climbing higher invites more challenges. Yet, we frequently direct our frustrations at leaders for our problems, often without recognizing our own inclination towards selecting flawed leaders. Just consider the outcomes of elections in your country.

Imagine browsing Netflix and starting a documentary about an impeccably honest leader with no scandals— you probably wouldn’t stay engaged for long. Conversely, a documentary about a leader embroiled in controversy, wealth, and personal scandals, like The Wolf of Wall Street, would likely capture your attention.

Politics heavily relies on narrative. Sometimes, the veracity of the story is secondary to its delivery. This phenomenon may elucidate how figures like Trump emerged victorious in the U.S. elections, despite proliferating misinformation.

Similar to toxic relationships, we gravitate towards certain dynamics. Instead of making rational choices, we often opt for leaders who forge emotional connections with us. This inclination is at the heart of identity politics — we favor leaders who reflect our identities and experiences.

A primary strategy for securing power is gaining attention— akin to relentless advertising. Leaders who command the media spotlight, whether through controversy or charm, maintain visibility. In today’s landscape, being seen equates to power, regardless of whether the attention is favorable or not.

Another tactic involves creating crises or framing scenarios as such. A leader may not resolve all issues but can present themselves as the savior amid turmoil. As the saying goes, today’s complexities can rarely be attributed to a single individual. By magnifying fears and uncertainties, they position themselves as essential navigators through chaos.

Churchill's Ethical Dilemma: The Sacrifice Conundrum

During World War II, Winston Churchill confronted a real-life version of the trolley problem, a classic ethical dilemma that raises questions about whether sacrificing a few can save many. This dilemma emerged when British intelligence, under his direction, successfully deciphered the Nazi Enigma code, enabling them to intercept German military communications.

A particularly painful instance arose when they intercepted a message indicating that German U-boats intended to attack an American convoy in the Atlantic. Churchill faced two agonizing choices:

1. Alert the Americans: Informing the American convoy could save many lives. However, this would reveal to the Nazis that their communications had been compromised, forcing them to change their encryption methods and potentially losing a crucial intelligence advantage that could save countless more lives during the war.
2. Stay Silent: Opting not to warn the convoy would allow the attack to proceed, costing many lives. However, this choice would preserve the secret of the code-breaking, enabling the Allies to continue intercepting and decoding German communications, which could be vital for achieving long-term success in the war.

Churchill's decision to remain silent, allowing the convoy to be attacked, illustrates the harsh realities of wartime leadership, where choices often involve selecting between two undesirable outcomes. This scenario starkly encapsulates the trolley problem: sacrificing a few lives for the potential to save many more in the future. Churchill’s choice, though painful, was based on the conviction that safeguarding the Enigma secret would eventually yield greater success in the war effort, notwithstanding the immediate loss of lives.

Why do leaders often make poor choices?

Before casting blame on a leader, we must first comprehend why their decisions tend to falter. The primary reason can be attributed to the dirty hands problem. A leader's reputation is consistently at stake, making it nearly impossible for them to emerge unscathed. Leaders frequently bear the brunt of the risks associated with their decisions. As Newton’s third law posits, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.

Regarding reactions, we cannot predict how individuals will respond to our actions, as noted by Marcus Aurelius centuries ago. Holding a position of power often translates to more opportunities to cause harm. This leads to another reason: the increased chances of negatively impacting others.

As Brian Klaas notes, everyone in high positions inevitably affects some lives adversely while enhancing others. It’s a matter of distribution. As social beings, we cannot satisfy everyone. Every decision will have beneficiaries and those who are disadvantaged, which is not inherently wrong; it’s about balancing the scales of harm and benefit.

Another complication arises when leaders learn to excel at being bad. When doing the right thing is challenging, leaders may choose to be bad strategically. Leadership entails making compromises and sacrifices. Acknowledging this reality helps us grasp that every decision carries risks and uncertainties, and no leader is exempt from the repercussions of their choices.

Moreover, poor decisions often stem not solely from individual policies but also from the power dynamics and political contexts in which leaders function. Public pressure, political expectations, and personal interests frequently shape their decision-making processes.

Why do we unconsciously select ineffective leaders?

The reasons may lie within human psychology and societal influences. Brian Klaas identifies three primary factors: our difficulty distinguishing between confidence and competence, our attraction to charismatic figures (exacerbated by the rise of mass media), and our susceptibility to the charm of narcissistic behaviors.

1. Confidence vs. Competence: Many of us erroneously equate confidence with competence. When someone asserts themselves confidently, we often assume they are knowledgeable. However, confidence does not necessarily reflect competence; a confident individual might merely excel at projecting certainty despite lacking the requisite skills or expertise.
2. The Power of Charisma: Our fascination with charisma significantly influences our leadership preferences. In the age of mass media, charismatic individuals wield excessive influence. Media platforms amplify the voices of those who can enchant audiences with their charm. We are attracted to leaders who weave compelling narratives, even if those narratives lack truth or grounding.
3. The Allure of Narcissism: Lastly, narcissistic behaviors often propel individuals to power because they are adept at self-promotion. Their demeanor of superiority and entitlement can be misinterpreted as strength and leadership potential. Their allure often blinds us to their less favorable traits.

Beyond confidence, charisma, and narcissism, there exists a profound driving force: the promise of hope. Ineffective leaders frequently gain power because they instill in us a belief in a better tomorrow. They pledge change, solutions to our dilemmas, and a vision of prosperity that resonates with our intrinsic desire for hope.

Hope is a fundamental aspect of human existence. Philosopher Ernst Bloch articulated in “The Principle of Hope” that hope fuels human action. It’s not merely a passive state but a motivating force that propels us forward. Our lives are not just about the present; we are driven by the future we envision. In uncertain times, the allure of a leader who can ignite that hope is overwhelmingly compelling.

This explains why we often overlook the shortcomings of charismatic leaders. We become enamored with the notion that they can fulfill our dreams and aspirations, even when the evidence suggests otherwise. We yearn for the possibility of change, the belief that someone can guide us out of our current challenges into a more promising future.

However, hope can be a double-edged sword. While it can inspire and motivate, it may also obscure reality. As Rebecca Solnit observed in Hope in the Dark, hope compels us to confront uncertainty. It can drive us to act, yet it can also leave us vulnerable to false promises and deceptive leaders.

Conclusion

In our pursuit of leadership, we frequently find ourselves attracted to unsuitable individuals. The appeal of confidence, charisma, and the promise of hope can cloud our judgment. We misinterpret these qualities as competence, allowing high-conflict individuals to ascend to power.

Yet, it doesn't have to be this way. By recognizing the pitfalls we often encounter, we can select leaders who not only offer hope but also embody integrity and courage. We can look beyond superficial traits and prioritize the qualities that genuinely matter in a leader — integrity, competence, and a true commitment to the common good.