Why the Most Foolish People End Up in Power

Why the Most Foolish People End Up in Power – Machiavelli Knew This - YouTube

The Paradox of Power: Unveiling the Truth with Niccolò Machiavelli

This analysis begins by exploring the perplexing phenomenon of incompetent individuals ascending to positions of authority, a pattern observed across history from Emperor Nero to modern corporate figures like Elizabeth Holmes, whose company, Theranos, was built on ultimately non-functional technology, resulting in a multi-billion dollar fraud. Diving into the insights of Niccolò Machiavelli, a 16th-century political philosopher, the video examines the psychological and systemic reasons behind this paradox. The core argument emphasizes how the appearance of competence often trumps actual ability in the pursuit of power, a reality Machiavelli understood centuries ago. The video highlights that in many cases, being smart is precisely what prevents one from gaining power and influence.

• Machiavelli's observation, "Everyone sees what you appear to be. Few experience what you really are," underscores that perception is paramount. This is a key factor in the dynamic.
• A controversial 2017 study suggests that the correlation between intelligence and leadership effectiveness peaks at an IQ of around 120. Beyond that, increased intelligence can hinder leadership emergence because exceptionally intelligent individuals can struggle to connect with those who can't follow their complex thought processes.
• Applying these insights involves critically evaluating whether our perception of leadership is influenced by superficial qualities like confidence and certainty. We should focus on assessing real results over impressive rhetoric.

The Unethical Advantage: A Race to the Bottom

The contrast between ethical principles and the pursuit of power is stark, as illustrated by the historical fates of Cicero and Caesar. In contemporary settings, the conflict continues: ethical candidates often struggle against those willing to employ deception. Researchers at the University of British Columbia found a correlation between psychopathic traits, such as a lack of empathy, and rapid advancement, especially when combined with social charm. This is not unique to any single culture; similar patterns are observed in various organizational structures, including Nordic companies where ethical leaders often lag behind manipulative peers. This creates a "race to the bottom", a scenario where unethical tactics become the norm, incentivizing others to follow suit to avoid being left behind. This is supported by game theory, where a player can choose to be ethical or unethical, yet still be rewarded in the short-term, leading to the unethical player obtaining a higher payoff or overall benefit.

• Unethical behavior can become normalized, with successful tactics prompting others to mimic them.
• This creates a pressure to adopt similar methods or risk being left behind, transforming entire systems, making unethical behavior the standard.
• Recognizing conditions that favor this dynamic is key to designing systems that prioritize merit and genuine competency.

I'll analyze how the discussion of incompetence and power applies to modern politics and corporate management, and research what democracies and corporations can do to avoid rewarding incompetence.

Modern Cases of the Incompetence-Power Paradox

Corporate Examples

WeWork and Adam Neumann

The rise and fall of WeWork under Adam Neumann exemplifies how overconfidence can trump competence. Despite a questionable business model that consistently lost money, Neumann's extraordinary charisma and absolute certainty helped him secure billions in investment and achieve a $47 billion valuation. As mentioned in the original document, "WeWork's Adam [Neumann] exemplified this. Despite a shaky business model, his unshakable confidence helped him attract billions in investment and a cult-like following." The company's subsequent collapse when faced with public scrutiny revealed the gap between perception and reality.

Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes

Elizabeth Holmes, mentioned specifically in the original text as one of history's examples of incompetent leaders, built Theranos into a $9 billion company based on technology that never worked as promised. Her unwavering confidence, rehearsed deep voice, and Steve Jobs-like image created an aura of competence that attracted distinguished board members and investors. The company collapsed when the fundamental technology failures were exposed, demonstrating how presentation can override substance.

Softbank's Vision Fund

As noted in the original text, "Japan's Masayoshi Son of Softbank lost $70 billion on failed investments while maintaining investor confidence through sheer force of personality." The Vision Fund made massive investments in companies with questionable business models (including WeWork), yet Son's continued confident vision of the future maintained his position despite catastrophic financial results.

Political Examples

Brexit Campaign Leadership

The Brexit referendum campaign in the UK saw leaders offering simple answers to complex questions about Britain's relationship with the European Union. Those promising straightforward, pain-free solutions gained more traction than experts warning about complicated trade-offs and economic consequences. After the vote, many leaders who had pushed hardest for Brexit stepped back from implementing it, revealing they had no workable plan despite their confidence.

Populist Leadership Worldwide

Recent years have seen the rise of populist leaders across democracies who exemplify the pattern described in the text: "They transform substantive criticism into perceived attacks from enemies." By creating clear in-groups and out-groups, these leaders shield themselves from accountability while strengthening their supporters' emotional investment. This pattern transcends traditional left-right political divisions and appears across diverse political systems.

COVID-19 Response Disparities

The global pandemic provided a clear test of leadership competence with immediate feedback. Some leaders acknowledged the complexity and uncertainty of the situation while implementing evidence-based policies. Others projected absolute certainty while dismissing expert advice, often with catastrophic results. The contrast highlighted how confident simplicity often appeals more than nuanced competence, even when lives are at stake.

Institutional Countermeasures

Singapore's Civil Service

Singapore deliberately created a system to overcome the natural tendency toward incompetent leadership. Their civil service employs rigorous selection criteria, continuous assessment, and merit-based advancement with significant safeguards against patronage networks. While not perfect, this system specifically aims to prevent confidence from trumping competence in leadership selection.

German Corporate Governance

As mentioned in the analysis, "Germany's dual board corporate governance structure which separates management from oversight provides structural resistance to incompetent leadership." By requiring independent supervision from a diverse stakeholder group, this system creates institutional checks on overconfident but underperforming executives.

New Zealand's Evidence-Based Policymaking

Under Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand implemented a "wellbeing budget" approach that required evidence-based analysis for policy decisions rather than rhetoric. This structure created institutional resistance to decisions made purely on confidence or charisma, forcing leadership to demonstrate effectiveness through measurable outcomes rather than persuasive presentation.

These case studies demonstrate that the patterns identified by Machiavelli centuries ago continue to operate in modern institutions. However, they also provide models for designing systems that can resist the natural tendency for incompetence to rise to power through deliberate institutional safeguards.

How Incompetence Rises to Power: Modern Applications and Solutions

The Machiavellian Paradox in Modern Contexts

The text explores a paradox identified by Niccolò Machiavelli centuries ago: those least qualified for leadership positions often end up with the most power. This phenomenon persists in modern politics and corporate environments due to fundamental psychological and structural factors.

The Peter Principle, formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter in 1969, helps explain this paradox in organizational contexts. It states that "In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence," leading to Peter's corollary: "In time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties." Employees are promoted based on their performance in previous roles until they reach positions where they lack the necessary skills to succeed.

This intersects with the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how "people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities" while lacking "the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence." This cognitive bias creates a dangerous scenario where the least competent individuals are often the most confident about their abilities.

Why Modern Systems Reward Incompetence

Psychological Factors

Several psychological factors contribute to the rise of incompetent leadership:

1. Confidence Over Competence: Research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology demonstrates that individuals who display overconfidence are more likely to be perceived as leaders regardless of their actual competence. The appearance of certainty often persuades more effectively than demonstrated expertise.

2. The Appeal of Simplicity: As explained by Machiavelli and confirmed by modern cognitive psychology, humans crave certainty even when certainty isn't possible. People rarely rally behind leaders who acknowledge complexity and inevitable trade-offs. In complex environments like politics and corporate boardrooms, this creates a selection bias toward those offering oversimplified solutions.

3. System 1 vs. System 2 Thinking: Daniel Kahneman's work on cognitive processing explains why we often make poor leadership choices. He distinguishes between "System 1" thinking (fast, instinctive, emotional) and "System 2" thinking (slower, deliberative, logical). When selecting leaders, we often rely on System 1 intuitive judgments based on superficial qualities like confidence and charisma rather than carefully analyzing actual competence.

Structural Factors

Beyond psychology, organizational structures themselves can perpetuate incompetent leadership:

1. Feedback Loops and Accountability: In environments with clear, immediate feedback about decisions, incompetence is quickly exposed. But in systems where feedback is delayed, indirect, or easily manipulated, incompetence can thrive indefinitely. Both politics and corporate hierarchies often have poor feedback mechanisms.

2. Patronage Networks: Fukuyama argues that humans naturally favor friends and family over others, leading to patrimonialism—the tendency to distribute positions based on personal relationships rather than merit. This biological tendency undermines meritocratic systems.

3. The Competence Drought: Weak leaders deliberately select weaker subordinates to ensure they never face threats to their authority, creating a cascading effect where incompetence becomes institutionalized. This creates what organizational scientists call homophily—the tendency to associate with similar others.

Solutions for Modern Democracies and Corporations

Institutional Design

Francis Fukuyama's work provides insights on designing political systems that resist incompetence. He argues that a stable political order requires three pillars:

1. A Strong State: Fukuyama contends that liberal democracy rests on three institutions: "a strong and effective state, the rule of law, and political accountability." Only when all three exist together is liberal democracy possible.

2. Rule of Law: The rule of law "has its origins in organized religion, which created a set of rules with a legitimacy independent from that of the state." This provides checks on power that prevent the worst abuses.

3. Democratic Accountability: An accountable government is responsible to the people it governs. Formal accountability made important advances in seventeenth-century England when parliament forced the king to respond to its demands.

For modern democracies, these principles suggest several reforms:

1. Strengthening Civil Service: Fukuyama warns that "the modern administrative state that the United States created in the Progressive Era has been steadily repatrimonialized over time," suggesting a need to reinvigorate professional, non-partisan civil service.

2. Transparency Mechanisms: Clear access to information about performance helps citizens evaluate leaders based on outcomes rather than rhetoric.

3. Robust Accountability: Systems can be structured to reduce bias, deception, and incompetence through accountability mechanisms that deliver honest feedback regardless of a leader's charm or persuasive power.

Corporate Solutions

For businesses seeking to avoid the Peter Principle and elevate the most competent leaders:

1. Alternative Career Paths: Many organizations unwittingly promote senior technical staff to management because "the only way for an individual to progress is by becoming a manager." Companies should provide "non-managerial progression, not just managerial progression."

2. Skills-Based Promotion: Rather than promoting based solely on current performance, organizations should "assess a candidate's ability to perform in the higher-level role, not just their current one."

3. Leadership Development: Companies should "give team members the training they need to succeed" before promotion, including opportunities to develop leadership skills before taking on management roles.

4. Cognitive Diversity: Institutions must foster cognitive diversity, the inclusion of differing perspectives in decision-making. Diverse teams aren't just socially desirable—they're empirically more accurate.

Individual Strategies

At the individual level, we can build resistance to manipulation and poor leadership:

1. Intellectual Humility: Research shows that intellectually humble people are better at evaluating ideas based on evidence, not confidence. Intellectual humility functions like a cognitive immune system.

2. Media Literacy: Developing the skill of discerning depth from spectacle helps citizens make better choices about which leaders to support.

3. Metacognition: Understanding how our minds work, particularly the interplay between System 1 and System 2 thinking described by Kahneman, can help us recognize situations where our intuitive judgments may lead us astray, prompting us to engage more deliberative thinking.

Conclusion

The tendency for incompetent individuals to rise to positions of power is not inevitable. By understanding the psychological and structural factors that enable this pattern, we can design systems that select for true merit over superficial qualities like confidence and charm.

For democracies, this means building strong institutions with professional civil services, transparent processes, and meaningful accountability mechanisms. For corporations, it means creating alternative career paths, skills-based promotion criteria, and deliberate leadership development.

At an individual level, cultivating intellectual humility, media literacy, and metacognitive awareness can help us become less susceptible to manipulation by incompetent but charismatic figures.

By implementing these solutions at institutional and individual levels, modern societies can work toward systems where competence, not confidence, determines who rises to positions of leadership.

Sources

1. Atir, S., Rosenzweig, E., & Dunning, D. (2015). When Knowledge Knows No Bounds: Self-Perceived Expertise Predicts Claims of Impossible Knowledge. Psychological Science, 26(8), 1295–1303. https://www.edhec.edu/en/blog/dunning-kruger-effect/
2. Benson, A., Li, D., & Shue, K. (2018). Promotions and the Peter Principle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(4), 2085-2134. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/peter-principle-theory-decline
3. Cherry, K. (2023). An overview of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-the-dunning-kruger-effect-4160740
4. Fukuyama, F. (2011). The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/books-in-review-fukuyamas-grand-vision/
5. Fukuyama, F. (2014). Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Order_and_Political_Decay
6. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
7. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134. https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/dunning-kruger-effect
8. Peter, L. J., & Hull, R. (1969). The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong. William Morrow and Company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
9. Premuzic, T. K. (2013). Confidence: Overcoming Low Self-Esteem, Insecurity, and Self-Doubt. Hudson Street Press. https://www.managers.org.uk/knowledge-and-insights/article/this-is-why-incompetent-managers-are-the-most-over-confident/
10. Turner, N. (2024). The Peter principle and why it inadvertently leads to incompetence. UXM. https://www.uxforthemasses.com/peter-principle/