Competence → Authority: More Is Usually More

Competence plays a significant role in shaping authority and influence in group decision-making. Individuals perceived as competent often hold greater decision-making power, influence group consensus, and guide the strategic direction of collective choices. Why is this common?

This text is part of the series on decision governance. Decision Governance is concerned with how to improve the quality of decisions by changing the context, process, data, and tools (including AI) used to make decisions. Understanding decision governance empowers decision makers and decision stakeholders to improve how they make decisions with others. Start with “What is Decision Governance?” and find all texts on decision governance here.

Mechanisms Suggested to Explain Why Competence Influences Authority

Several mechanisms are outlined in the rest of the text. The diagram below visualizes the mechanisms through variables and labeled edges reflecting the rules used to describe each mechanism. Labels match section numbers of sections where mechanisms are presented.

1. Perceived Competence and Legitimacy of Authority

Competence serves as a basis for expert power, a form of authority where individuals influence others due to their expertise rather than formal hierarchical position. People naturally defer to those they perceive as knowledgeable, granting them greater decision-making influence.

• Competence → Perceived Authority: Higher competence increases the likelihood of being recognized as a credible decision-maker (French & Raven, 1959).
• Perceived Authority → Influence Over Group Decisions: Individuals who are perceived as competent gain greater control over decision outcomes.

Example: In corporate settings, executives with a proven track record of strategic success are more likely to be trusted with high-stakes decisions.

2. Competence and Persuasion in Group Settings

Competence enhances argument quality and credibility, leading others to conform to expert-driven perspectives. Skilled individuals articulate their reasoning more effectively, making their views more compelling in group settings.

• Competence → Increased Persuasiveness: Competent individuals are more effective in shaping opinions and persuading group members (Cialdini, 2001).
• Increased Persuasiveness → Group Consensus Formation: Expertise leads to stronger arguments, making it more likely that others will adopt their recommendations.

Example: A senior engineer in a product development team is more likely to persuade colleagues about the best technical approach than a novice.

3. Competence and Decision-Making Roles

Competence establishes implicit leadership expectations, where skilled individuals naturally assume decision-making authority. Groups gravitate toward those with expertise when seeking guidance, reinforcing their leadership status.

• Competence → Leadership in Decision-Making: Groups tend to assign leadership roles to members who demonstrate high competence (Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986).
• Leadership → Greater Control Over Final Decisions: Leaders shape decision processes and outcomes by structuring discussions and directing priorities.

Example: In crisis management, a competent leader takes charge, delegating responsibilities and guiding the team toward a resolution.

4. Competence and Trust in Uncertain Situations

Competence reduces perceived uncertainty, making group members more likely to follow the expert’s guidance. Trust in competence ensures that decision authority is allocated to those best equipped to make informed choices.

• Competence → Trust from Group Members: Higher competence fosters trust in one’s judgment, particularly in high-risk or ambiguous decision scenarios (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995).
• Trust → Delegation of Decision Authority: Group members are more willing to defer to competent individuals when facing complex decisions.

Example: In medical teams, nurses and junior doctors defer to experienced surgeons when making life-critical choices.

5. Social Perception and Competence Bias

Groups often rely on heuristics (e.g., confidence as a proxy for competence), which may distort actual expertise-based authority. This can lead to suboptimal decision-making when influence is based on perceived rather than real competence.

• Competence Perception → Unequal Influence Distribution: Not all members are granted influence equally; biases may favor those who appear competent over those who are competent (Tost, Gino, & Larrick, 2012).

Example: Individuals with strong communication skills or confidence may be seen as more competent than those with actual technical expertise, skewing influence dynamics.

6. Competence and Resistance to Influence

Competence strengthens independent thinking, reducing vulnerability to social conformity. Experts rely on their analytical abilities rather than yielding to popular but flawed opinions, enhancing decision quality.

• Competence → Reduced Susceptibility to Peer Pressure: Experts are less likely to conform to groupthink and more likely to challenge poor decisions (Janis, 1972).

Example: A financial expert in a board meeting might reject a risky investment plan despite pressure from other executives.

References

• Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice. Allyn & Bacon.
• French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power. University of Michigan Press.
• Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Houghton Mifflin.
• Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402–410.
• Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
• Tost, L. P., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. P. (2012). Power, competitiveness, and advice taking: Why the powerful don’t listen. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 53-65.