In the research I’ve been conducting around leadership development, I have repeatedly read about the strategy of organizations looking for cultural fit over technical competence when hiring or promoting leaders. I understand that this seems a way of guaranteeing that the leader can carry the organizational vision and promote organizational culture. However, I think if an organization "settles" for someone lacking skills then they have a house of cards that cannot support the vision and culture of the organization.

What is the technical incompetence they are willing to allow candidates to have? It seems ridiculous that any leader would come to the table without the basic technical competencies for technology (MS Office and online technologies) and any leader that doesn’t have all the technical competencies of a leader, budgeting or HR law for example, is a weak leader.

How can a weak leader support the vision and the culture of an organization? A weak leader will be forced to support themselves and their weaknesses. The culture now becomes about covering mistakes and eliminating threats (employees who may have the competencies the leader lacks). Weak leaders will also support each other because anyone truly competent would recognize the incompetence and possibly threaten the weak managers. That is the problem with incompetence, it doesn’t always seek opportunities for competency but breeds insecurity which means propping up the incompetence.

The only culture that could support and nurture a weak leader is a culture of learning but most leaders see themselves as competent because they are leader. "Hey, I’ve been promoted to a leadership position, I’m doing something right!"

Can an organization support and develop weak leaders? What would they need to have in place? Can a leader own up to incompetence to develop themselves?