In the civil world one has to ask the difference between satisfactory & adequate. What I have seen over the past 20 years, in some companies, is the dilution of standards. Yes there have been failures in bi-annual checks and command upgrades. For that they have to be bad, bad. Much is available in advance for self-briefing & study. The emphasis is much more on training, coaching, grooming. You have to be a muppet to fail, but still some do. The level of 'good' seems to be the norm, i.e. average. Often the next level down is low average, fair, satisfactory. They are still passes. It has to be a fail, below standard to cause retraining. The line between the 'just a pass' and a fail can be very thin. There are some who think that 'adequate' = good is good enough. For command adequate is all that is needed. Why bust a gut to be better. It is not a meritocracy. For those of us who were trainers, and as such (hopefully) above average, our own standard was the norm to us. It was very disappointing to find that there were some who were satisfied to be just adequate and expect that a command would come their way in time. The rapid expansion of airlines during the last 20 years could only have been achieved with adequate, just good enough, pilots. It's a business.
One would hope that after your driving test/PPL test/CPL test/LST a conscientious person would strive to improve their skills. I'm saddened when that is not the case. I wonder if that is expecting too much.