Have you ever looked at a person in a high position and wondered, “How did they get there?” We’ve all seen it. Individuals who seem utterly inept rise to the top, while their more capable peers are left in the shadows. Think of the emperor Nero, fiddling while Rome burned, or more recently, corporate figures like Elizabeth Holmes, who built a multi-billion-dollar company on technology that never existed. This pattern is so frequent it feels almost deliberate. What if there is a twisted logic to it? What if, sometimes, the least qualified are the ones who gain the most influence?

This isn't just a modern frustration. More than five centuries ago, while in exile from his beloved Florence, Niccolò Machiavelli wrote one of the most controversial political guides in history: The Prince. Unlike the idealistic philosophers who came before him, Machiavelli wasn’t concerned with how a ruler should act in a perfect world. He was interested in how power actually works. His harsh conclusions reveal a chilling link between incompetence and power that echoes in our world today, from corporate boardrooms to political chambers. The uncomfortable truth is that being smart can sometimes be the very thing that holds you back.

The Curse of Cleverness

“Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are.” This statement cuts to the core of Machiavelli’s thought. He understood that in the game of power, perception is often more potent than reality. And here we find the first clue to our paradox: appearing competent is more valuable than being competent.

Machiavelli observed that leaders who display too much intelligence often create their own problems. Why? Because true intelligence is often tied to traits that become liabilities in a power struggle: nuanced thinking, ethical reflection, and self-awareness.

When a genuinely intelligent person enters a power structure, they tend to see complexity where others see simplicity. They acknowledge limitations where others make bold promises. They doubt themselves where others project absolute certainty. In an arena where decisive statements are valued more than thoughtful reflection, these intellectual virtues become fatal flaws.

Consider the ancient philosopher Socrates, who questioned everything and was ultimately sentenced to death for it. His famous wisdom, “I know that I know nothing,” made him a philosophical giant but a political failure. In contrast, history is filled with populist leaders who rose to power by claiming they alone had all the answers. A controversial study in a management journal once suggested that intelligence only correlates with leadership effectiveness up to an IQ of about 120. Beyond that point, the researchers argued, higher intelligence can become a handicap, as exceptionally smart leaders struggle to connect with those who can't follow their complex reasoning.

The Confidence Illusion

If intelligence can be a weakness, what qualities help people ascend? This brings us to a psychological principle that explains why we so often follow the wrong people. Have you ever noticed how the loudest voice in the room often becomes the most influential, regardless of its message?

In the 1990s, psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger identified what is now known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is a cognitive bias where people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability, while true experts tend to underestimate their own competence, acutely aware of how much they still don't know. As Shakespeare wrote centuries earlier, “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”

Modern research confirms this bias plays out in leadership. A 2020 study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that people who displayed overconfidence were more likely to be seen as leaders, irrespective of their actual competence. The appearance of confidence was more persuasive than demonstrated skill. Think of figures like Adam Neumann of WeWork, whose unwavering self-belief, despite a precarious business model, attracted billions in investment and a cult-like following. Our brains use mental shortcuts to judge others; confidence signals competence, and decisiveness hints at clarity. These shortcuts may have served our ancestors in simpler times, but in our complex world, they often lead us astray.

The Incompetence Network

This illusion of confidence explains how inept people can rise to power, but something more insidious helps them stay there: they surround themselves with even less competent people. In The Prince, Machiavelli wrote, “The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.”

He understood that weak leaders deliberately choose weak subordinates to ensure they are never challenged. This creates a cascade effect where incompetence becomes institutionalized. Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, an organizational psychologist, calls this the “threat of competence.” Insecure leaders feel endangered by skilled team members who might expose their flaws or one day replace them. Instead of selecting for talent, they select for loyalty and non-threatening mediocrity.

Think of the court of the Roman Emperor Commodus, where capable administrators were systematically replaced by flatterers and sycophants, hastening the empire's decline. This dynamic creates what scientists call "homophily"—the tendency for people to associate with those similar to themselves. In power structures, this means incompetent leaders build islands of incompetence around them, insulating themselves from criticism and reality. Have you ever worked in a place where asking tough questions was discouraged? Where raising concerns was treated as a sign of not being a team player? These are the symptoms of this network effect in action.

When Morals Become a Weakness

Here, Machiavelli’s analysis becomes truly unsettling. He suggested that moral considerations often hold intelligent people back in the brutal contest for power. In his most infamous passage, he advised that a ruler "must learn how not to be good, and to use or not use this knowledge according to necessity."

While intelligent people often develop more sophisticated moral reasoning, this very quality can make them unable to compete with those unburdened by such scruples. In any competitive arena, individuals willing to cross ethical lines have access to strategies that are off-limits to their morally constrained rivals. They can make promises they never intend to keep, undermine opponents through deceit, and exploit fears others wouldn’t dare to touch.

Consider the fates of Cicero and Julius Caesar in ancient Rome. Cicero, brilliant and principled, ultimately lost his struggle against Caesar, who had no qualms about breaking the norms his rivals held sacred. In organizational life, researchers have found that psychopathic traits like a lack of empathy, when paired with social charm, are positively linked with rapid career advancement. This creates what game theorists call a "race to the bottom." When unethical tactics are seen to work, others feel pressure to adopt them or be left behind, slowly transforming entire systems for the worse.

Building a Defense Against the Dark Arts of Power

Understanding these dark dynamics can feel disheartening. But not all environments reward these behaviors equally. By recognizing the conditions that allow incompetence to flourish, we can start to design systems that select for true merit.

Environments with clear and immediate feedback loops expose incompetence quickly. A surgeon whose patients consistently fail to recover or an engineer whose bridges collapse cannot hide. But in fields where feedback is slow, vague, or easily manipulated—like politics or complex corporate hierarchies—incompetence can thrive.

At the collective level, we need robust mechanisms of accountability, like independent boards and oversight committees that provide honest feedback, regardless of a leader's charisma. We must champion cognitive diversity—the inclusion of different viewpoints—which challenges assumptions and reduces the blind spots that homogeneous groups suffer from.

On a personal level, our first line of defense is awareness. By understanding the hidden forces at play, we become less susceptible to them. This requires cultivating intellectual humility—the ability to admit the limits of our own knowledge. It requires us to practice reflection, stepping back from the daily chaos to consider deeper principles.

At the end of this exploration, we return to the man who inspired it. Machiavelli has been misunderstood for centuries as an advocate for the dark patterns he described. But he was an exposer of them. He believed that only by understanding how power truly works—not how we wish it would—could we build better systems. He left us with a profound reminder: “It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles.”

Authority itself deserves no respect. Power must be earned through its worthy application. The way forward is not to pretend these dynamics don't exist, but to understand them so deeply that we can overcome them. It is to develop the personal and collective wisdom to resist manipulation. While incompetence may sometimes seize power, it is intelligence, paired with moral courage, that remains our best hope for creating a world where merit truly matters.

References

• Machiavelli, N. (written c. 1513). The Prince.
  This foundational text of political philosophy moves away from traditional morality to describe the often ruthless tactics necessary to acquire and maintain political power. It provides the core framework for the article's discussion on the separation between perceived virtues and the practical realities of leadership, such as the idea that appearing virtuous can be more effective than being virtuous, and the necessity for a ruler to understand how "not to be good."
• Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134.
  This is the seminal scientific paper that identified and described the Dunning-Kruger effect. It provides empirical evidence for the article's claim that less competent individuals often overestimate their abilities, while highly competent ones tend to underestimate theirs. This psychological principle is used to explain why overconfidence, rather than actual skill, can be a powerful driver in achieving leadership positions.
• Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2019). Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders? (And How to Fix It). Harvard Business Review Press.
  This book offers a modern, evidence-based exploration of the disconnect between the qualities that help people become leaders (like overconfidence and narcissism) and the qualities that make them effective leaders (like competence, humility, and integrity). It directly supports the article's arguments about the allure of unwarranted confidence, the danger of charismatic but inept leaders, and the systemic flaws in how we select for leadership roles.