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.
Decision Governance
This text is part of the series on the design of decision governance. Other texts on the same topic are linked below. This list expands as I add more texts on decision governance.
- Introduction to Decision Governance
- Stakeholders of Decision Governance
- Foundations of Decision Governance
- How to Spot Decisions in the Wild?
- When Is It Useful to Reify Decisions?
- Decision Governance Is Interdisciplinary
- Individual Decision-Making: Common Models in Economics
- Group Decision-Making: Common Models in Economics
- Individual Decision-Making: Common Models in Psychology
- Group Decision-Making: Common Models in Organizational Theory
- Role of Explanations in the Design of Decision Governance
- Design of Decision Governance
- Design Parameters of Decision Governance
- Factors influencing how an individual selects and processes information in a decision situation, including which information the individual seeks and selects to use:
- Psychological factors, which are determined by the individual, including their reaction to other factors:
- Attention:
- Memory:
- Mood:
- Emotions:
- Commitment:
- Temporal Distance:
- Social Distance:
- Expectations
- Uncertainty
- Attitude:
- Values:
- Goals:
- Preferences:
- Competence
- Social factors, which are determined by relationships with others:
- Impressions of Others:
- Reputation:
- Social Hierarchies:
- Social Hierarchies: Why They Matter for Decision Governance
- Social Hierarchies: Benefits and Limitations in Decision Processes
- Social Hierarchies: How They Form and Change
- Power: Influence on Decision Making and Its Risks
- Power: Relationship to Psychological Factors in Decision Making
- Power: Sources of Legitimacy and Implications for Decision Authority
- Power: Stability and Destabilization of Legitimacy
- Power: What If High Decision Authority Is Combined With Low Power
- Power: How Can Low Power Decision Makers Be Credible?
- Social Learning:
- Psychological factors, which are determined by the individual, including their reaction to other factors:
- Factors influencing information the individual can gain access to in a decision situation, and the perception of possible actions the individual can take, and how they can perform these actions:
- Governance factors, which are rules applicable in the given decision situation:
- Incentives:
- Incentives: Components of Incentive Mechanisms
- Incentives: Example of a Common Incentive Mechanism
- Incentives: Building Out An Incentive Mechanism From Scratch
- Incentives: Negative Consequences of Incentive Mechanisms
- Crowding-Out Effect: The Wrong Incentives Erode the Right Motives
- Crowding-In Effect: The Right Incentives Amplify the Right Motives
- Rules
- Rules-in-use
- Rules-in-form
- Institutions
- Incentives:
- Technological factors, or tools which influence how information is represented and accessed, among others, and how communication can be done
- Environmental factors, or the physical environment, humans and other organisms that the individual must and can interact with
- Governance factors, which are rules applicable in the given decision situation:
- Factors influencing how an individual selects and processes information in a decision situation, including which information the individual seeks and selects to use:
- Change of Decision Governance
- Public Policy and Decision Governance:
- Compliance to Policies:
- Transformation of Decision Governance
- Mechanisms for the Change of Decision Governance