I've recently encountered people who dismiss others out-of-hand because they don't have experience. Whether it's in politics or business. And, to a certain extent, questioning one's experience is valid. However, if the assumption is that someone has nothing positive to offer on a subject until they are well-versed, is both unfair and potentially counter-productive.
Based on my half-century on this Earth, one thing I have discovered is that confidence and competence are not correlated. A good example of this are climbers in the corporate world who are expert at playing political games to advance, but are actually quite bad at their job, assuming they even take the time to apply whatever useful skills they might have.
Yet, time and again, people gravitate towards the confident and cock-sure (see: Bush Jr., Trump, for example). An intellectual is often dry and cerebral and you probably don't want to have a beer with her. Which is a shame, because the intellectual may actually be more competent, notwithstanding their social skills which many may find off-putting.
Give me a medical doctor any day that knows his s**t but has less-than-stellar bed-side manners. I don't want a doctor advising me and making potentially life-and-death decisions just because he's a social butterfly or a confidence salesman. I want a doctor that I know has depth and is sufficiently educated and informed (and curious) to make recommendations I can trust.
I could ramble on about other occupations and how this phenomena might apply, but I'll stop here at the risk of boring the reader (already too late for that?).
Leadership is not knowing everything there is to know about a job (ask any CEO). Leadership is knowing what you DO know; AND just as importantly, what you DON'T know ... and then being wise and humble enough to hire smart and competent people in those areas where you are weak. Lack of leadership is exemplified by bravado, arrogance, willful ignorance and fatalism.
