Sometimes the person in charge of an effort — a project, an organization, an investigation, whatever — isn't capable of understanding or dealing with the issues and obstacles encountered along the path to the effort's success. This isn't much of a problem when everyone involved is also at a loss. The group either fails or finds a way. But sometimes the people subordinate to the less-capable leader (I'll use the term LCL for brevity) are far better equipped to deal with the issues at hand than the LCL is. I call this situation a capability inversion. And the risk of trouble is greatest when the LCL hides his or her limitations, creating a concealed capability inversion.
In capability inversions, those who have the highest levels of formal organizational authority might also have relatively low capacity for understanding how to apply resources to serve the common purpose, while those who have lesser levels of formal authority might have superior capacity for understanding how to apply resources in service of that purpose.
When a Less-Capable Leader (LCL) openly acknowledges his or her own limitations, a very effective solution is available. Open acknowledgement enables the LCL to play a strong leadership role by designating a small group of expert advisers. Relying on the subject matter expertise of this advisory group, the LCL can consult the experts while still retaining responsibility for any necessary decisions. In matters that require breadth of knowledge of the subject matter, this leader-and-advisers configuration can usually produce results superior to the results of a single capable leader acting without advice. This happens because the breadth of knowledge and experience of the advisory team can usually exceed that of any individual. I call this leader-and-advisers configuration an open capability inversion. Open capability inversions are common in organizations; they can be very effective.
Problems become truly In capability inversions, those who
have the highest levels of formal
organizational authority might also
have relatively low capacity for
understanding how to apply resources
to serve the common purposeunmanageable in concealed capability inversions, because solving the organization's problems can become over-constrained. Solutions must not only deal with the problems at hand, but also maintain the fiction that the LCL has actually coped with the reality of the situation. And then, after the team has found a solution, the LCL must be portrayed as having led the organization to success, when, in fact, no such thing has occurred. This over-constraining of solutions can actually prevent the organization from finding any solutions at all.
For this reason, organizations that detect a concealed capability inversion can benefit by ending the concealment, and converting to an open capability inversion with a leader-and-advisers configuration. The ability to recognize concealed capability inversions in the early stages can therefore be most helpful.
What follows is Part I of a short catalog of indicators that suggest that an organization is caught in a concealed capability inversion. In this part, I describe the styles of asking questions that LCLs characteristically adopt in the context of concealed capability inversions.
- Declining to ask clarifying questions relevant to the issue
- The single tactic most useful to the LCL for increasing the LCL's competence with the subject matter is asking clarifying questions. Ironically, LCLs tend to be averse to asking clarifying questions when the capability inversion is concealed. Rarely does the LCL ask questions in open discussion, probably because of a fear of revealing the fundamental level of his or her understanding.
- Instead, the LCL plows ahead, making some decisions — and deferring others — on the basis of intuition or an incomplete or fundamentally mistaken understanding of the issues. To those who understand the subject matter, the LCL's behavior can seem inconsistent or hasty or tragically wrong-headed. That might be a correct assessment. But those decisions might well be consistent and appropriate, not with respect to reality, but with respect to the LCL's (erroneous and incomplete) base of knowledge.
- Asking inappropriate or vague questions
- Some LCLs regard asking questions in meetings as obligatory. To them, questioning is a demonstration of the power of the leader. But because of an incomplete or faulty understanding of the issue at hand, the LCL has difficulty formulating questions that contribute in any way to moving the discussion forward. The questions the LCL does ask have answers that are obvious to the well-informed subordinates, or have been previously answered, or are otherwise inappropriate. But the LCL doesn't recognize this.
- To avoid embarrassment, and to avoid acknowledging the capability inversion, the LCL avoids asking questions about all but the most transparent issues. The questions the LCL does ask are vague enough to conceal the limits of the LCL's understanding.
In Part II, I'll examine techniques LCLs use to manage their images and project the (usually false) impression that they're leading the problem-solving effort. Next in this series Top Next Issue
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenHoWzUJVeioCfozEIner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- The Advantages of Political Attack: II
- In workplace politics, attackers are often surprisingly successful with even the flimsiest assertions.
Often, they prevail, in part, because they can choose the time and venue for their attacks. They also
have the advantage of preparation. How can targets respond effectively?
- The Attributes of Political Opportunity: The Finer Points
- Opportunities come along even in tough times. But in tough times like these, it's especially important
to sniff out true opportunities and avoid high-risk adventures. Here are some of the finer points to
assist you in your detective work.
- Durable Agreements
- People at work often make agreements in which they commit to cooperate — to share resources, to
assist each other, or not to harm each other. Some agreements work. Some don't. What makes agreements durable?
- Impasses in Group Decision Making: IV
- Some impasses that develop in group decision making relate to the substance of the discussion. Some
are not substantive, but still present serious obstacles. What can we do about nonsubstantive impasses?
- Surviving Incompetence: II
- When your organization undertakes a misguided effort that will certainly fail, you have options. One
is to head for the exit. To search for a new position in such circumstances requires some care. Example:
an internal transfer might not really be an exit.
See also Workplace Politics and Managing Your Boss for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming June 7: Toxic Disrupters: Tactics
- Some people tend to disrupt meetings. Their motives vary, but they use techniques drawn from a limited collection. Examples: they violate norms, demand attention, mess with the agenda, and sow distrust. Response begins with recognizing their tactics. Available here and by RSS on June 7.
- And on June 14: Pseudo-Collaborations
- Most workplace collaborations produce results of value. But some collaborations — pseudo-collaborations — are inherently incapable of producing value, due to performance management systems, or lack of authority, or lack of access to information. Available here and by RSS on June 14.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenHoWzUJVeioCfozEIner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info