Competence or Motivation?

Which is more important to success?

Warner Burke, my long-time colleague at Columbia, used to pose this question to his classes: “Which is more important to performance; competence or motivation?” Knowing that they were in a program on social psychology in which human development is a big focus, most of the class voted for motivation, believing that over time, a person’s will to succeed would overcome any deficiencies in their preparation for the role.

Warner then followed up with a discussion of the possible combinations of competence and motivation. High competence and low motivation would result in underperformance against a person’s capabilities. Low motivation and low competence would get you nowhere. High competence and high motivation is what we all want from our people. The real danger zone, Warner explained, is when low competence is combined with high ambition. No one wants to work for or employ a highly motivated idiot.

Warner was referring to the extreme, of course. Few people are totally brilliant or hopelessly stupid. Most of us and most of the people we work with are somewhere in the middle. We aren’t brilliant but we know a few things. We are not always as motivated as we would like to be but we often try to do our best under the circumstances. We aren’t overly narcissistic but we do have some confidence. So what should we take from Warner’s lecture regarding selecting people for key roles?

As a CEO, board member or senior executive, we carry a great deal of responsibility. Selecting people for key roles is one of the most important of those responsibilities. Others are paying close attention to what we say and do. The choices we make of who to promote send people scurrying to develop similar qualities to those we reward. Do we prefer competent individuals over not-so competent but highly motivated ones? Trusted allies over better-performing potential challengers? To those observing, the answer isn’t always clear. If asked anonymously, “Are the most competent people selected for promotion in this organization?” what would their response be?

Clearly, we would all agree it’s good to avoid promoting Warner’s highly motivated idiots. But when it comes to choosing among possible candidates for promotion, what exactly are the criteria you are using and how well do those criteria line up with the ones being used by other senior leaders in your organization? When I speak to Human Resource business partners about this, I frequently observe their eyes look down and their heads shake from side to side. That tells me that something is going on and that there might be room for improvement. Here are some of the most common mistakes to avoid, regardless of the level of the position you are trying to fill.

Mistaking motivation for ability. We love people who demonstrate that they care. They stay late, work weekends, and jump every time we ask them to. We can mistake that kind of go-getter attitude for a measure of their ability or actual performance. We want to reward people with the right attitude and use them to set an example for others of how they should behave. However, if they are lacking ability, these are exactly the folks who rise to their level of incompetence and later cause us headaches when we need to remove them based upon their under-performance. As management theorist Elliot Jaques explains, the higher up someone goes in an organization, the longer their “time span of discretion,” by which he means how long it takes to discover that the person has made a mistake. At the top, failed strategies can take years to manifest. Therefore, detecting gaps in an executive’s ability can be difficult. That’s why it’s even more important to pay attention to actual performance above and beyond a person’s attitude when making key executive appointments.

Mistaking performance for leadership. You have heard the often-repeated mantra that the best salesperson doesn’t make the best sales leader. Someone who is self-absorbed and overly concerned with their individual success may not bring the best out in their people. These individuals have a tendency to be over-controlling because they believe there is a right way to do things and they know what that is. They can be both highly motivated and highly competent which makes them prime candidates for promotion. However, skill in one role doesn’t necessarily carry over into skill in another. Related to this is the idea that a successful expert can become a generalist when asked to lead a business unit or region. More time basting in other functions may be required before they are ready.

Underestimating the height of the step. Spotting young talent and grooming them for positions of greater responsibility is a good thing to do. Some of the largest and most successful organizations in the world have been created and guided by young people. At the same time, not all opportunities are alike in terms of their degree of challenge, especially if there are political dynamics at play. More senior colleagues can be upset by rapid promotions of their younger counterparts or undermine their success by withholding their support. Family members who are allowed to jump several levels without first gaining the experience required of others are especially susceptible to backstabbing. Organizations debate whether to make the list of those considered to be high potentials public in order to prevent defections or backlash from those left out. While it makes perfect sense to promote based on merit, it’s important to assess whether the move is too fast or too far to allow the candidate to succeed. The step up to the C-suite is a big one, in particular, because it is unlike anything that most candidates have experienced before. Make certain the person is ready to be their own boss and be surrounded by others who don’t suffer fools gladly.

Judging a book by its cover. Some candidates stand out by being different in a noticeable way. It could be their place of last employment or involvement in a successful merger, turnaround, or new product development introduction. While eye-catching, any of these experiences by themselves is not a guarantee of future success. It’s tempting to say, “All things being equal, I’d like to go with the candidate who brings unique experience to our group.” But are things really equal? In the ideal, you want to identify a candidate who brings both distinctiveness and proven capability to the job. Just having worked in a great company doesn’t mean that they will thrive in your culture or be able to recreate their past success.

Instead of making these mistakes, here are some things you can do to improve your chances of selection success.

Test drive before you decide. Find a way to try the person out in a role before making the job permanent.

Get a second opinion. Even though you may have a favored candidate, go to someone who is likely to have an objective view about the person to make sure you are seeing the whole picture.

Look at the facts. Pay attention to any actual performance data that are available. Probe the reasons for setbacks or down periods. Knowing how the person recovers from adversity will tell you a lot about how they will handle challenges in the future.

Be prepared to invest. Anyone assuming a position of greater responsibility will get some things right and miss others. Be prepared to spend more time on average than you normally do with your direct reports to develop someone who has recently been promoted.

Now once again, would you rather select someone who is competent or highly motivated?