I notice managers in companies fearing to hire better people than themselves. These fears are often unconscious. Why is this? Some say it's a matter of fear of losing their position and being replaced by someone else. This seems unlikely to me. Another theory suggests it might be a fear of losing prestige. Supposedly, we're afraid that someone will show us something they can do better, and we'll be embarrassed in front of the staff for showing us this.
 

However, this isn't about perception, but about solving real problems. The point is that if, as entrepreneurs, we hire people who aren't better at anything than we are, and we are actually the best at everything, ultimately those who are supposed to relieve us, instead of solving problems, end up creating more work for us. Instead of being helped, we are the ones who are helping others. This isn't how it should be. The greater the gap between the manager who knows better and the employee who doesn't know much, the more difficult the manager faces.

On the other hand, if a manager is savvy and aware enough (and cunning enough) to hire people smarter than himself in at least one area, then any problems that arise in that area won't be theirs, because they won't have to solve them. They will be solved by someone with greater competence in that area. If someone is cunning enough to try to be the weakest link in the organization, hiring the best possible people for the positions they should be in, then — after a period of accepting that they are not the best and after a sufficiently long period of cultivating a sense of competence in their colleagues — they become, above all, an expert in creating and maintaining a constructive work environment. And this becomes their primary responsibility as a leader.

The alternative to slowly but systematically becoming the weakest link in the organization (or team) by promoting the competencies of others and recruiting good people is to be the smartest, most important, and most outstanding. An expert in everything. And then you have everything on your plate. It's true that creating a team of experts who can handle almost everything for you is expensive. However, this is a cost that should likely translate into significantly higher profits in the long run. And if you're struggling alone for a large group of your employees, each of whom should really be working elsewhere, not for you, you'll increase the risk of missing something crucial. When you can't handle something (and you won't if you're just doing the work for a few or a dozen people), something in the organization will inevitably fail. Ideally, the participants in the organization (employees, more consciously called collaborators or business partners, or, if certain conditions are met, also co-owners) should experience a sense of responsibility for it. Ideally, they would see the organization as their organization, their enterprise, on which their retirement future and even the future of their descendants may depend, because they will receive or inherit shares from which they will receive a quite decent dividend.

This, however, requires significant organizational awareness on the part of the owner, even at the design stage, or significant changes in mindset if the organization is already operational. An organization designed in an old, ineffective style also accepts individuals who by no means seem to be champions of engagement. It's not their fault that they work in the organization; someone hired them, after all. Certainly, better candidates emerged during the recruitment process, more suitable for the position, but they showed no interest in the salary offered. There were also those who accepted the salary because it allowed them to survive. If you reward an employee so much that they can barely survive, don't expect them to offer the organization anything more than mere survival. They'll work for a C-plus, just enough to keep things moving along smoothly enough to avoid firing them. It will ensure the organization's survival until strategic mistakes are made that could eliminate the organization from the market, or until someone misses important information about market changes. Important information about market changes is first acquired by employees who directly operate in that market (e.g., in the sales department). If these employees ignore crucial information, management may learn about problems several months after they occur. The market for some products may enter a phase of decline, and rebuilding it will be difficult.