
Ask HN: Are most leaders big on ego and short on competence? - tomek_zemla
When I was straight out of school I assumed that people in positions of leadership were there due to their hard work, knowledge and intelligence. After over 20 years of professional work - often as consultant where I moved between many organizations - a pattern seemed to emerge. Majority of leadership positions are occupied by people with oversized egos who are lacking in professional skills and knowledge, but they got there by being loud bullies with sharp elbows pushing aside more competent, but gentle humans. Is it only me who thinks that?
======
PaulHoule
Pretty much all the evidence is that the "Servant Leader" who has some
humility outperforms the "big ego" leader in every way.

Unfortunately the Narcissistic personality type is unreasonably effective in
American culture and there are many tendencies which reinforce it.

If we ought to stop talking about anything it is the "Meritocracy". We have
the ideal that talented people should rise to the top, but the converse of
that is very dangerous: "Because I am powerful, I am competent."

Back in the bad old days the Narcissitic leader who could control the
narriative to suit themselves was a male characteristic but now we are seeing
some gender equality.

One example is Marissa Meyer who was successful as a Product Manager because
Google was successful. However, Yahoo needed a turnaround specialist, not a
cult of personality. I guess she'll run for Congress next.

Jurgen Habermas in his excellent book

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimation_crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimation_crisis)

talks about how politics and other powerful people need to invest in
legitimacy, otherwise people become ungovernable.

The Republican party is sick because it has pursued legitimacy through making
candidates run the guantlet with a large list of "litmus test" questions to
get access to funding. One reason Trump won was that he escaped that and put
together his own bundle of issues that actually appealed to voters.

Certain prominent Democrats have leaned on the "I am powerful, this is a
meritocracy, thus I am deserving" line entirely too much. This reaches the
absurd extent that there was only one significant candidate in the Democratic
primaries who was actually a Democrat and you find many Democrats who think
Clinton lost because she had opposition in the primaries.

To the contrary. If a candidate wins a seriously contested primary it shows a
lot about their ability to reach out to people, win elections, etc.

------
osullivj
No, you're not alone. I spent 17 years working in investment banks. The trend
you identify is quite pronounced in those organisations. My response has been
to become highly cynical, and very demanding when negotiating compensation.

