When Style Prevails

We all enjoy a dash of style: the eloquent speech, the well-cut clothing, and the signs of sophistication. But what about those organizations in which appearance trumps substance? What can be done when the well-spoken but shallow person is favored over the inarticulate but more substantive rival?

In my experience, very little if the bias is at the top. If the rewarding of the superficial is done at lower levels, corrective action is possible. Tough questions can be asked and appraisal standards changed. In the higher regions, however, the presumption of competence can be hard to shake if the person looks and sounds the part.

I will not demoralize myself by reflecting on how many times I've seen this. What is disturbing is how often these touted wonders are transparent frauds. In some instances, they are placed in executive positions while possessing less real managerial experience than the day manager of the McDonald's on the corner. They can drone on about process - buzz words come easily to their lips - and yet are sparse when it comes to producing results.

Their rise reminds me of the reaction that was sometimes voiced when colonial peoples were replacing their governments with ones which, at least for a period, were chosen by the native population. The new leaders may be less competent, the reasoning went, but at least they would not be outsiders. This "One of ours" concept - often tied to class - explains the selection and promotion of some of the most inept characters in the world of business and government.

They look the part. They got the right degrees. They are one of us. Those who expect a clear-eyed focus on ability are missing the point. In those situations, ability is in the second or third tier of considerations and besides, it is presumed.

Thus style becomes a cover for a form of aristocracy.