Strong followers instead of weak bosses
Why do people with mediocre performance rise to the top of an organisation, while the most talented people often remain at lower levels? A new study by HEC Lausanne and the University of Zurich questions common management logic and shows that, in certain cases, precisely this constellation can be efficient for the entire team.
The classic assumption is that those who perform will be promoted. However, the so-called Peter Principle already explains why good employees often rise to the level of incompetence. Researchers Christian Zehnder, Benjamin Tur and Matthieu Légeret have now introduced a new perspective. They argue that it is not only their competences that count when a manager is promoted, but also the loss of their contribution as a follower.
A conflict of objectives with consequences
If a person with high team competence becomes a manager, the group often loses a productive and committed employee at the operational level. In some cases, it may therefore be strategically wiser to promote a less competent person, simply in order to maintain the functioning team structure.
Leadership is not always the key to success
“Our research shows that under certain circumstances it can be optimal to place less competent people in leadership roles,” explains Zehnder. This is particularly true when the leadership function is time-consuming but operationally less crucial and when the best follower is indispensable for day-to-day work.
Role of corporate culture
A key element here is recognising the value of good follower roles. Reward systems could be designed in such a way that top performers want to remain at lower hierarchical levels without this being perceived as a career standstill. Internal communication is also needed to explain why not every promotion is synonymous with the highest contribution to the organisation.
Rethinking leadership means increasing efficiency
The study calls for a radical rethink of talent strategy. The classic idea of promotion is not always the best solution for the organisation. Sometimes it is more effective to leave expertise where it brings the greatest benefit, even if this means that the best people are not at the top. True success may lie in the strength of those who do not lead.