When the Boss thinks they know best

It can happen throughout anyone’s working life and at any level, the situation where you find yourself reporting to someone who is not as competent as you but believes they are. I’m sure if you’re reading this you can remember a time when that happened to you. There are individuals who rise into senior positions despite limited competence and there are individuals who are competent in one field and get promoted into an overarching General Manager or CEO role and they overestimate their ability and knowledge in other key fields. Most of the time you make it work which can be a draining and frustrating experience or you change jobs or they move on, however there are times when that person does have a negative impact that affects the company’s fortunes.

Psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger identified what is called a metacognitive blind spot: people with limited skill in a certain field overestimate their ability because they lack the very expertise needed to recognise their shortcomings. In leadership, this manifests as overconfidence, dismissal of specialist advice, and a tendency to attribute poor results to other people rather than their own personal judgment.

There are several structural and cultural factors that can lead to this, for example in many companies, promotions are influenced by networking or political acumen. Senior positions often require less specialised technical knowledge and more interpersonal skills, which can favour individuals who excel in self-promotion over those with specialist expertise. Companies may prioritize loyalty, tenure or alignment with corporate culture and a manager who maintains strong relationships with key decision-makers may be promoted over more competent colleagues. Then there are those performance evaluations which often rely on subjective metrics like “leadership presence” or “team morale” allowing individuals to mask their shortcomings and there may be a failure to even verify whether candidates have the skills to handle the new role, relying instead on past performance in an unrelated role or industry. There is also cronyism and nepotism, were personal relationships or social connections (e.g. shared educational or socioeconomic backgrounds) can play a role in promotions. A board member may appoint a close associate to a C-suite position, overlooking more qualified candidates due to personal ties. Diversity and Inclusion can be a factor where pressure to meet diversity targets can mean people are promoted without sufficient training or mentorship programs to prepare them for the role.

Low competence people in senior roles tend to have specific personality traits that while not inherently negative, can be leveraged to create an illusion of competence. They tend to be charismatic and have good social skills, they have narcissistic tendencies, such as an inflated sense of self-worth or entitlement, also they tend to be Machiavellian and therefore skilled at manipulation, forming strategic alliances and navigating power dynamics, they also conform to the values and expectations of the company and they often avoid taking risks that could expose their weaknesses, instead focusing on maintaining a positive image and they are also adept at deflecting blame onto others or external factors.

The impact of promoting these types of people can lead to poor decision-making, reduced morale, demotivated teams and strategic mistakes. These individuals often maintain their positions by continuing to leverage their personality traits, building a network of allies, and avoiding situations that expose their weaknesses. However, they often come unstuck when genuine expertise is required and ultimately, rewarding charisma, loyalty or political skill over competence can perpetuate a cycle where such traits are prioritised, further entrenching the problem.

Focusing on the Radio industry and the Content function in particular, a General Manager/CEO or senior executive who spent their career in sales, finance or operations roles may genuinely believe that “gut feel”, personal listening habits, or success hitting EBITDA targets equips them to also take on the role of programming strategist. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect in a radio suit and tie, and that metacognitive blind spot means they cannot accurately gauge their own limitations and therefore they undervalue the experience of the content team and overvalue their own personal views and the effect can be costly.

Let me pause here and state that in my over forty years in radio, I’ve worked for some excellent supportive General Managers and CEOs, but I’ve also worked for a couple you could apply the Dunning Kruger effect to.

The mismatch that occurs inevitably results in strategic decisions becoming battlegrounds, the Content Director, after analysing the ratings trend may propose certain initiatives based on what he/she sees in the research while the General Manager or CEO who is focused on costs and shareholder expectations and pushes for more networking, reduced headcount, or worse, format tweaks to satisfy personal taste. The Content Director must explain nuanced reasoning in a way that the boss will understand which can be frustrating and challenging and often gets lost in translation resulting in expert judgment being overridden. The response on average survey days is often “make it more engaging,” “give me more hits,” or “We need a big idea”.

When ratings or revenue improve, staff meetings and board reports credit “strong leadership.” When they soften, the narrative shifts to execution shortfalls by the Content team. The Content Director must also devote time and energy managing upward, securing buy-in for basic professional practices and absorbing criticism that belongs further up the ladder.

The industry is facing genuine disruption from podcasts, streaming, and changing in-car habits and we can’t afford to lose any person competent in a specialist field like music directors, audio producers, show producers etc for the loss of institutional knowledge that occurs over time weakens the industry and makes it less competitive.

Experienced competent Content Directors are highly skilled individuals. Their roles require deep understanding of listener psychology, the principles of programming, ratings and research interpretation, talent coaching, regulatory compliance and innovation. Managing such people effectively cannot rely on traditional hierarchical control. Research on creativity in companies and media sectors shows that competent creative people work most best when the certain conditions are present.

Radio remains a creative industry at its core and when it comes to managing people, in this case Content Directors, the evidence consistently shows that granting a healthy degree of autonomy with agreed boundaries is important as micromanagement or decisions that are frequently overridden based on non-expert opinion demotivates people. Also important is having a meaningful challenge by setting stretch goals tied to audience growth and talent retention for example rather than having EBITA as the sole goal. Adequate resources like research tools (market studies, music testing) are essential as are opportunities for professional and personal development and time to do the role rather than drowning in the corporate addiction to reports and PowerPoint presentations. Also, the removal of bureaucratic or political obstacles which includes protecting them from excessive upward interference in creative decisions is important.

This is not soft management, these are researched evidence-based conditions for extracting maximum value from the expertise the Content Director and other creative people have. Companies that fail to understand this and treat them as interchangeable middle management and will never reach their full potential.

Radio needs Content Directors who deeply understand both the science and art of programming and people in other key content functions that are masters of their craft. When executives or boards overestimate their own knowledge and fail to recognise the depth of expertise they lack, the station or network and ultimately the industry suffers. This is not an isolated management problem, if the industry fails to protect and promote the specialised skills required to help keep radio distinct in an increasingly crowded audio landscape then Radio will, over time, continue to lose listening to other audio platforms. Until promotion and evaluation systems acknowledge and reward demonstrated skill and ability (some of it innate) as much as they reward political skill and prowess with PowerPoint presentations, audiences will suffer and the industry that serve them will pay the price.