The Automatic Attribution of Competence by Role

One of the most amazing phenomena (myths) we all witness through the course of our careers is the attribution or inference of knowledge, skills and particular competencies simply by virtue of the position someone occupies or the title someone holds. In other words, just because someone is promoted to a management position, the inference must be drawn, particularly by the supervisor who promoted him or her, that the individual actually knows how to “manage” people and lead the organization. However, since few companies actually seem to have any formal training programs, tutorials, handbooks, or other learning modalities to familiarize or immerse people into what it truly means to manage other human beings, one has to wonder how the newly promoted managers magically acquired these competencies. How does an individual who has never had any prior managerial experience or training become endowed with the knowledge and qualities needed to motivate, lead, train, guide, evaluate, and promote their new subordinates?

Or take another example. The senior executives bring in a new individual to become general manager of an operation. What are the specific attributions or inferences of competency that must be drawn (and granted) as a result of that simple act? Well, all of the competencies ascribable to that job, of course. Otherwise, we must assume that the new individual wouldn’t be there, right? And, the new general manager expects us to understand immediately that he or she must be “smarter” than we are because, after all, he or she occupies the titled position and we don’t. And the new individual must act and “look” the part, if for no other reason than that they can’t be found out by their manager to be less than “all-knowing” in their new role. They will only be rewarded and promoted for “looking good” and “being right.” After all the person who put them into the position is not paying them for “not knowing,” for asking too many questions, for being indecisive, or being wrong. Having the answer is what it’s all about and sounding intelligent is essential, even if the ideas or opinions expressed are not founded on articulable theory, hypotheses generated from trial and error, specific knowledge, corroborated information or fact. So the charade begins.

And we all play the game, become complicit in inferring the manager’s infallibility and omniscience. We decide it is unreasonable (or potentially career limiting) to point out errors in the individual’s thinking and decisions, and we stay quiet even when we know that wrong questions are being asked, the focus is misplaced, the identified problem is really only a symptom of something deeper, or the decision is off target. We quietly do what we’re told even when we know it won’t make a difference for the organization, or worse, will hurt the organization. And, this myth of infallability is exacerbated even more by the emergence of an increasing portion of workers as knowledge workers. Knowledge workers' specialties and particular skills very often distance them over time from their supervisors or managers' competencies, supervisors and managers whose technical knowledge and skills may have been acquired long ago, may be outdated in today’s environment, or may never have really been germane to the task (or tasks) that his or her employees now face. How do CFO’s or COO’s make intelligent decisions with respect the work of digital circuit designers, test engineers, marketers, or salesmen? How does a hospital administrator, trained in hospital management, begin to fathom the difficulties of the task decisions faced by oncologists or cardio-pulmonary specialists?

They often can’t. But we can’t say so and neither can they.