In most hierachies super-competence is more objectionable than incompetence.

Excellence makes everyone else expendable

There's something unsettling about being around someone who's genuinely excellent at what they do. We admire it in theory, but in practice, it can feel threatening. A mediocre coworker who makes mistakes stays safely contained—their limitations are clear, and everyone knows their place. But someone truly skilled? They expose the gaps in everyone else's performance just by existing. They make the hierarchy feel unstable because suddenly the usual hierarchy isn't the real one anymore.

This explains why organizations often promote people who are good enough but not too good, why talented people sometimes get pushed out, or why the most competent person in the room might be the least popular. There's an unspoken rule: don't make everyone else look bad. It's not always about jealousy exactly—it's about comfort. Incompetence is predictable and manageable. Mastery is unpredictable; it changes the game.

The twist is that this pattern usually hurts the organization more than it helps. But from the perspective of people who've invested in the current system, real competence is genuinely more dangerous than someone just getting by. That discomfort you feel around exceptionally talented people? It's not a personal flaw. It's you recognizing, correctly, that they've shifted something fundamental in the room.