The Grand Facade: Is Your Boss Faking Competence?

You knew it! Finally, after years and years of musing about the possibility, but never having the research to back you up, your thoughts are validated. According to a study appearing recently in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, many administrators may fake competence about subjects they know nothing about. And, guess what? They usually don't get caught.

This finding goes along with the logic that if you want others to view you as a leader, then you should simply act like one. For instance, by coherently articulating your thoughts and opinions, others will begin to follow your advice. Obviously, if someone's advising on a subject they're knowledgeable about, then this is no problem. But, what happens when the person you're following is a phony? Will they unintentionally lead you down the wrong road?

The Rise of the "Alpha" Leader

To test this theory, University of California, Berkeley researchers Cameron Anderson, PhD, and Gavin Kilduff gathered 68 graduate students and separated them into 17 groups. In order to eliminate a possible gender bias, all of the four-person teams were either comprised solely of men or women. The researchers then gave each team the task of managing a fictitious nonprofit environmental association. And, to compensate the participants for their efforts, the researchers vowed to reward the top team with a $400 prize. Although the prize money was legitimate, Anderson and Kilduff simply wanted to see how leaders would emerge in each group. The supposed purpose of the study - organizing a nonprofit association - was irrelevant.

After the groups worked for a preset length of time, the researchers asked each of the team members to evaluate one another on their overall impact on the group and, most importantly, their competence. In addition, Anderson and Kilduff videotaped each of the groups and asked people unaffiliated with the study to rate each team member on their level of influence and competence. Then, Anderson and Kilduff performed the same evaluations. The overwhelming consensus? Those who voiced their opinions the most received top marks in the "general intelligence" and "dependable and self-disciplined" categories. On the flip side, team members who failed to speak up were widely considered "conventional and uncreative". According to Anderson and Kilduff, "More-dominant individuals achieved influence in their groups in part because they were seen as more competent by fellow group members".

False Confidence

The researchers then took their research one step further and tested their theory on a new group of volunteers. However, this time, the four-person groups were asked to collaboratively solve computational problems taken from an old Graduate Management Aptitude Test (GMAT). In addition, each study participant privately relayed his or her math SAT score to the researchers. Once again, team members who regularly voiced their opinions were rated as more knowledgeable and competent than their reserved peers.

But, here's where it gets interesting: Because the GMAT answers were either right or wrong, Anderson and Kilduff could evaluate whether the supposed "math whizzes" were faking competence. And, after the researchers scored the tests, many of the phonies were revealed. What's more, the "team leaders" - those who were rated extremely competent - were not the individuals who provided the most right answers. In fact, their SAT scores didn't even imply that they could. So, what did they do to earn their group members' confidence and trust? Provided answers - that's all.

Up for Discussion

Personally, I think this study raises many questions about strong leadership. Although it's necessary for managers to convey competence to their subordinates, it's also critical for them to acknowledge when they don't have the answers.

So, have you ever caught your boss faking competence about something that you're certain he or she doesn't actually know? If so, how did you handle this situation? Please share your stories!