The Most Talented (Best & Brightest) vs. The Self Oriented (Most Connected) in Hiring (We Love to Judge)

People love to judge. They love to judge each other, judge themselves, and judge society. We are essentially designed to evaluate our environment and determine what is helpful versus unhelpful, who we can trust, and which situations are beneficial or harmful. We live in a socially constructed world, so people are constantly evaluating one another.

(Illustrative Only)

The board can't figure out
why they are losing money
and non competitive. 

They decided the solution was to hire
their friends John and Sally
from their expensive golf club to
right size the company. 
(btw I like golf but being funny.
I just suck at it.🙃)

John and Lucy
were rejected because
they were not the
"right fit" for 
the organization.
They took a few
of their ideas though.😉

Even after the VIP fast pass to
the top the company
still is losing money. 
Go figure! 🤷

The problem arises when we apply these judgments to management, leadership selection, government officials, political candidates, nonprofit leaders, or virtually any organization. We often associate assertiveness with a higher position in the social hierarchy. We assume that someone who is more assertive must somehow have greater value, competence, or leadership ability.

There are situations where assertiveness is valuable, particularly when someone has a clear mission or purpose that benefits the organization or the broader community. But more often than we might like to admit, assertiveness can simply reflect self-interest. Some people are demanding because they are primarily focused on getting what they want, and they have little concern for how their behavior affects everyone else. They have little reflection of the consequences of their decisions or the authority entrusted in them.

When we put people like that into positions of authority, they can have a corrosive effect on decision-making and organizational outcomes. We have all seen situations where the wrong person was promoted because they were well connected, knew the right people, or were simply demanding enough to get noticed. A few years later, the organization discovers that this person has created chaos, damaged morale, and driven away some of its best and brightest performers for an organization.

Authority can legitimize dysfunction. Once someone is given a position of power, they have the ability to make decisions that affect other people and, unfortunately, spread their own dysfunction throughout the organization. A self-oriented and pushy person who is in a position of authority will certainly misuse that authority to get what they want even if that runs counter to the purpoe of that position or the mission of the organization. 

That brings us to the difference between the most connected or most demanding person and the best and brightest. The best and brightest often have talent, ability, and sound judgment. They are thoughtful. They don't necessarily need to force their opinions on everyone else. They can be clear about their positions, confident in their decisions, and willing to explain their reasoning without resorting to intimidation or bullying.

Of course, there will always be people who resist good conscious and helpful outcomes. Sometimes leaders have to make difficult decisions and move forward. But organizations are generally better served when they gravitate toward thoughtful, capable people rather than simply rewarding the loudest, most aggressive, or most demanding individuals.

If you consistently gravitate toward narcissistic or highly dysfunctional personalities simply because they are assertive, you should expect additional chaos. Leadership selection isn't just about the person being selected. It is also about the people doing the selecting. Further it is about the people in the organization and the stakeholders.

People who elect leaders, hire managers, or place individuals into positions of authority have a responsibility for those decisions. They have responsibilities to the organization, to the people who work there, and, in many cases, to society. If they are careless about who they put into positions of power—or allow ideology, personal connections, or aggressive personalities to override sound judgment—the consequences can affect everyone.

So be wise about who you put in positions of authority. Be wise about who you elect. Be thoughtful about how you make decisions. The most demanding, the most ability to create narratives, the most ability to deflect responsibility may look good on sound bits but often weaken an organization over time.

Don't mistake aggression for leadership or rudeness for strength. Some people are simply selfish and demanding, and if they are consistently rewarded with positions of authority, they can create chaos wherever they go. Are you sure that is the type you want running your organization? Managing your money or resources? Fulfilling a mission or working with customers?

Ultimately, the people we choose to lead us matter. And those responsible for making those choices need to understand that they are not simply selecting an individual—they are shaping the culture, decisions, and outcomes of the organization or society that follows.

 Social Hierarchy, Status, and the Evaluation of Assertiveness and Ability

• Social evaluation is often organized around two broad dimensions: how well people get along with others and how effectively they pursue goals. This study focuses on the vertical dimension, particularly assertiveness and ability.
• The researchers examined whether a person’s position in a social hierarchy affects how they evaluate others, using legitimacy beliefs and relative status as indicators of hierarchical position.
• Across four studies, higher-legitimacy and higher-status judges tended to see greater overlap between assertiveness and ability when evaluating social targets.
• Lower-status or lower-legitimacy judges differentiated more strongly between being assertive and being capable, suggesting that social position can influence how people interpret the characteristics of others.
• The findings demonstrate that judgments of competence and status are not completely objective; they can be shaped by the evaluator’s own position within a hierarchy. This has implications for understanding leadership, workplace evaluations, stereotyping, and organizational power relationships.

Yzerbyt, V., Barbedor, J., Carrier, A., & Rohmer, O. (2022). The facets of social hierarchy: How judges’ legitimacy beliefs and relative status shape their evaluation of assertiveness and ability. International Review of Social Psychology, 35(1), Article 18, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.695