‘When arguing with a fool, make sure the other person isn’t doing the same thing’ is an old proverb which I always ascribed to. In 1999, psychologists Dunning and Kruger described a phenomenon of incompetent people who actually think they are experts.
Foolishness can be defined in many ways. What I am talking about is the unrecognised incompetence. Almost 90% of drivers think they are very competent at handling vehicles; this is way above what research shows. People who are incompetent in certain areas such as logic, humour, negotiation, management, leadership skills and so on, do not have the necessary expertise to rate themselves realistically and accurately. All they know is that they are driving, debating, negotiating, leading a team of people on merit so, they rate their performance above or way above average.
On the other hand, those who have highly developed skills in certain fields, know enough to realise they have a long way before they feel confident enough to declare their superiority in the field in question. So, what we end up with is a modest expert and an arrogant fool; quite a paradox!
The other interesting feature of this arrogant foolishness is that it is more common amongst men than women. This is partly due to the fact that men nurture certain traits such as charisma, sense of humour, risk taking and most telling of all, confidence. Nearly all of us confuse competence with confidence; when we meet someone who shows a high degree of confidence, we assume they must be competent enough to display such confidence.
Clearly, organisations need competent people in the right jobs and to recognize employees on the basis of meritocracy, rather than an unreasonable sense of entitlement. However, the higher up the tree you look, the more critical and urgent this matter becomes; all the way to the top of the hierarchy. We need leaders in politics and business who are competent, effective and principled, rather than confident, ineffective, immoral psychopaths. Who would you rather have as the head of state: Angela Merkle or Donald Trump? Nelson Mandela or Robert Mugabe? Who would you rather work for: Warren Buffet or Kenneth Lay of Enron? Bill Gates or Harvey Weinstein?
In my 45+ years as a professional I came across so many bad leaders and so few good ones. I am talking about a ratio of 70% – 30% split, at best. The one thing that marked the bad leaders was the unique mix of arrogance, incompetence and psychopathic tendencies. They all rated themselves very highly and surrounded themselves with people who gave them constant affirmation that they were wise, highly intelligent, respected and admired leaders. In reality, they were foolish, incompetent, feared and resented individuals who would not think twice about sacrificing anyone in the organisation to satisfy their lust for punishment or passing the blame of their own failures. Here are a couple of examples.
The second most senior person in a company I worked for was entrusted with introducing a new business critical I.T platform. It was around July time and our senior executive, let’s call him Jim, decided on a whim that the system should be up and ready by 1st January of the following year. He called a number of middle ranking executives, including me, to a meeting and explained what he had in mind. The room was split between those wo questioned or doubted the possibility of implementing such a system in less than 5 months and the sycophants who supported Jim’s assertions. The doubters were urged not to be negative and get on the train, while the believers basked in the sunshine of Jim’s approval. To fast track the project, all other activities were frozen and Jim hired a very reputable consultancy to facilitate, advise and help reach the magical date with a fully working system. By the end of July, a brainstorming meeting was organized with about 25 people in the room, including expensive partners from the consultancy firm. One of the partners suggested that we go round the table for everyone to express their views, concerns and overall opinions on the viability of the project. Not being used to listening, Jim reluctantly agreed and almost half the participants concluded that it would not be possible to deliver the system in 5 months. At the end of each person’s soliloquy, if the overall opinion is a ‘yes, we can do it in 5 months’ Jim responded by saying something positive. If however the conclusion was ‘No, it is not possible’, Jim with increasing frustration and belligerence would respond by saying “You are not hearing me, this system WILL be delivered by 1st January”. January came and went, the following January came and went and the system was still under development. More than half of the ‘Nay sayers’ left the organisation because they were blamed for the failure of the project. Jim carried on unscathed until retirement, which was marked with celebrations and gratitude by the board of directors for his loyalty and long service to the company.
Another company I worked for was headed by the strangest negotiator I ever came across. How he ever bought or sold anything is beyond me. His negotiating technique was simple, yet ineffective. If he was buying, he would ask for the price, halve it and hold back 10% of the original asking price, thus offering 40% of whatever was for sale. So, a building on offer for £10 million would be priced by him at £4 million. However, if he was selling, he would encourage the prospective buyer to make a bid, which he would then make a counter offer of 2 or 3 times the bid, depending on how keen he was to sell. The problem for the frustrated people around him was being blamed for the failure of the negotiation. He truly believed he was a brilliant negotiator who was surrounded by amateurs and incompetent people.
It is one of my life regrets that for 45 years I had to endure the company of such fools, justifying my actions by believing that I worked for the organisation, not the fool heading it. I conveniently ignored the fact that the organisation was heading in the direction of the foolish leader with enough fools around him to embolden him to carry on. However, I cherish the memory of the many others who were highly skilled, highly principled, modest, fair-minded, and generous colleagues who tried to make a positive difference.
So, is it possible to work for an organisation led by a fool without compromising one’s principles? Theoretically, yes, it is. In reality however, it doesn’t always work and it is a matter of time before the two directly opposing forces collide. When that happens, you may as well pack your bag and leave with some semblance of dignity.
In Plato’s Republic (Book VI), he describes a ship with men led by the ship owner who is hard of hearing, a failing sight and very limited knowledge of sailing. The other men on the ship realise they need an effective alternative captain, and they all vie for the position although they lacked the necessary skills to command the ship. Through intrigue, scheming and plotting, they end up nowhere near their original destination. Their foolishness manifests itself in their collective view that a ship captain must be skilled in knowledge of the four seasons, stars in the sky and prevailing winds, completely ignoring the expertise of skilfully steering a ship. This allegory came to be known as the ‘Ship of Fools’.
