Competent Leadership
I want mentally competent leaders, but more than that, I want competent leaders. Yes, the current moment seems to highlight the dangers of gerontocracy. Yes, mental competence is generally a prerequisite for “higher” forms of competence. Yet the furor over memory lapses, however justified, belies a widespread failure to subject candidates to the sort of practical scrutiny so central to plausible evaluations of efficacy.
To be clear, it’s not that we lack for quantity—the press and opposition researchers often surface even the most minute, obscure facts about candidates for high office. We also seem reasonably adept at and interested in debating matters of procedural competence (who can work across the aisle, whip votes, etc.). These issues are important and arguably necessary for competent leadership, but they tell us little about the “substantive” competence needed to develop rational policies in keeping with our preferences.
Imagine a mentally competent candidate who agrees with you about everything, has an unimpeachable reputation, and can get anything passed. Beyond idle curiosity, do you want to know anything else about that individual before handing them power? Your answer might be an enthusiastic “no!” in light of dissatisfaction with the current crop of politicians, and the two-party system seems to render much analysis moot. Nevertheless, I don’t think we’re wise to neglect consistent, rigorous evaluation of traits tied to policy-making and implementation competence.
Knowing that you’ve agreed on a destination and share some related values doesn’t tell you much about the journey or the likelihood of continued consensus. No matter their past successes or commitment to my health, I wouldn’t want a doctor confused by germ theory. Even the most ostensibly “unskilled” labor requires competence above and beyond that demonstrated by passing the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, so why do we seem so unconcerned with the practical, professional capabilities of candidates for some of the most challenging and consequential work? The rejoinder I hear most often is that, especially seeing as nobody can be an expert in everything, what really matters is the ability to take good advice. I applaud the recognition of a need for collaborative effort, but surely that ability itself depends on some baseline competence in identifying and ingesting good advice. Without that, leaders are liable to become capricious tyrants who frequently ignore good advice or, at best, lucky fools who serve as mouthpieces for competent, well-meaning advisors.
I’m not advocating for the adoption of some sort of litmus test, but I think we’d do well to encourage a culture of curiosity and intellectual humility where candidates voluntarily expose themselves to scrutiny. This isn’t an invitation to indulge in false equivalence or sacrifice accuracy for balance, nor should it further entrench the advantages of wealth. In fact, prioritizing the traits that allow for the development of competence should serve as a means of minimizing discrimination. The knowledge and acclaim enabled by accidents of birth are presumably weaker indicators of competence in future endeavors than empirical evidence about how someone would approach a problem today. If we agree that politicians must make policy about more things than they can fully grasp themselves, then an ability to recognize and cope with one’s own limitations seems vital to good leadership.
v0.10