[September 5, 2026] A good leader is one who makes himself less relevant as rapidly as possible. Then he’s free to take on the next, larger problem. That is not abdication, it’s the payoff.
What the best leader wants is distributed competence. This idea is associated with Prof. Jordan Peterson, not because he invented it, but because he gave the psychological concept a broader voice and speaks often on the topic. Jocko Willink calls it “decentralized command,” a military term. The substance of both is nearly identical: push decision-making and competence down the line so the organization doesn’t depend on one person at the center.
According to Prof. Peterson, leadership is tested by one practical criterion: if the organization would collapse or fail its mission the moment you disappear, you have not led well. You will have concentrated competence in yourself instead of spreading it.
Why would a leader want to give up that direct control? Why would he give up close micromanagement? What a leader should aim to do is not to control but to methodically build competence throughout the organization so the operation no longer depends on him. Control is a poor substitute because it keeps you trapped at the current scale. Distributed competence scales.
This only works if the leader is highly selective about the people he hires or partners with and structures deals so that no one feels taken advantage of. Once people realize they have been “had,” they stop giving their best and will not work with that leader again. Fairness is not niceness; it’s a precondition for voluntary, high-effort cooperation.
Competence should always be the organizing principle, not raw power, as the Postmodernists insist. The leader’s role is to push decision-making and capability downward so the organization can function without constant oversight.
When people solve something themselves, they identify with the outcome. This identification is an effort multiplier. You cannot get the same energy from people who are merely executing the leader’s orders.
We know this well in the military. As Willink notes, decentralized command works only when subordinates have been developed into collaborative problem-solvers capable of making local decisions as conditions change. The more that capacity is pushed downward, the more agile the organization becomes. The leader’s job is to build that capacity as quickly as possible, not to remain the bottleneck.
A good leader does not hoard control. He selects carefully, delegates real domains of effort, structures reward incentives so people are not cheated, gives credit where it’s due, and then steps out of the way so the leader can work on the next problem that is worthy of his attention.
NOTE: Much of this article is taken from lectures by Prof. Jordan Peterson in YouTube videos.
————
Please read my books:
Gen. Satterfield’s article hits the mark on what real leadership looks like. A strong leader does not try to stay in the middle of every decision. He builds skill in the people around him so the team can keep moving when he is not there. If the whole group falls apart the minute the boss steps away, that boss has not done his job. Giving people real work and real say makes them care more about the result. Fair treatment and picking the right people matter just as much as the plan itself. Control may feel safe, but it keeps everything stuck at one size. Spreading competence lets the group grow and handle bigger problems. The military has used this idea for a long time, and civilian teams would be smarter to do the same.
Good one, and although I never heard of “distributed competency” before, I certainly understand the idea. Thank you Gen. Satterfield for bringing this out. I do think that civilian companies need to push this idea more, and maybe the best already do. I know we teach this in the US Army, and other military services. Keep your “Leadership” new series going. 🫡