Organizations have long assumed that the individuals who rise to leadership roles are those best equipped to lead. Promotions are interpreted as a signal of merit—evidence that those at the top possess superior judgment, competence, and the ability to drive performance. Yet decades of research in personality psychology and organizational behavior suggest a more troubling reality: the characteristics that help individuals emerge as leaders are not the same characteristics that make them effective once they are in power.
This disconnect, which we have referred to as the Leadership Divide raises a fundamental question for modern organizations, boards, and executive search professionals alike: Are we systematically promoting the wrong people?
The Emergence Advantage: Confidence, Charisma, and Visibility
Leader emergence is a social and perceptual process. Individuals who stand out, speak up, and project confidence are more likely to be noticed and, ultimately, promoted. Extraversion, assertiveness, and emotional expressiveness play a central role in this process. These individuals are more likely to volunteer for leadership roles, influence group discussions, and create the impression of competence, even in the absence of strong performance data.
In many organizations, especially those that value speed and decisiveness, this visibility advantage is amplified. Promotions often reward those who signal readiness and ambition, not necessarily those who demonstrate restraint, humility, or long-term judgment.
For executive search consultants, these dynamics are familiar. Candidates who are polished, articulate, and confident often perform well in interviews and board presentations. The challenge is that confidence is not the same as competence, yet the two are often conflated in high-stakes selection decisions. Individuals who excel at self-promotion are particularly adept at navigating political environments and managing impressions. However, these same tendencies can mask significant risks once they are placed in positions of authority.
The Effectiveness Gap: What Actually Drives Performance
In contrast, leader effectiveness is determined by a different set of attributes, which are less visible during selection processes. Effective leaders consistently demonstrate integrity, competence, sound judgment, emotional stability, and humility. They are capable of making good decisions themselves, and they create environments where others can perform at their best.
Critically, effective leadership requires managing one’s own tendencies under pressure. Research consistently shows that most leadership failures are not due to a lack of technical ability. Instead, they are driven by interpersonal and personality-based derailers such as volatility, arrogance, dishonesty, micromanagement, and excessive risk aversion.
These derailment risks are difficult to detect in interviews or reference checks. In fact, many of them are closely related to the very characteristics that facilitate emergence. For example, individuals who are highly assertive and confident may also be prone to overconfidence and poor listening. Those who are bold and decisive may struggle with risk management or long-term planning.
This creates a central paradox highlighted by the Leadership Divide research. The characteristics that help individuals get promoted may simultaneously increase the likelihood that they will fail once promoted.
The Charisma–Competence Tradeoff
One of the most robust findings in leadership research is the tradeoff between charisma and competence. Charismatic individuals are often seen as inspiring, visionary, and persuasive. They are skilled at capturing attention and mobilizing others, which makes them highly attractive as leadership candidates.
However, charisma can also be associated with overconfidence, impulsivity, and a tendency to prioritize personal achievements over organizational outcomes. In extreme cases, charismatic leaders create short-term enthusiasm while undermining long-term performance through poor decision-making and dysfunctional cultures.
By contrast, less charismatic individuals are often overlooked during promotion decisions, despite possessing the qualities that actually sustain organizational success, such as discipline, accountability, sound execution, and willingness to share credit. Organizations that rely too heavily on subjective impressions of “presence” or “executive style” risk systematically favoring charisma over competence, thereby amplifying the leadership divide.
Why Organizations—and Search Processes—Get It Wrong
Organizations tend to promote emergent rather than effective leaders for several structural and psychological reasons:
For executive search firms, these factors underscore a critical reality. Without disciplined, evidence-based assessment, even well-run searches can inadvertently reinforce the same biases that operate within organizations.
Closing the Leadership Divide
Addressing this challenge requires organizations—and the search partners who advise them—to rethink how leadership potential is defined and assessed. Three principles are especially critical:
For executive search professionals, this also means playing a more active advisory role by helping clients challenge assumptions, clarifying the difference between presence and performance, and anchoring decisions in evidence rather than intuition.
Conclusion
The assumption that organizations naturally promote the best leaders is not supported by the evidence. Too often, organizations systematically promote individuals who excel at leader emergence but fall short on leadership effectiveness. Closing this gap is a strategic imperative. Poor leadership selection carries enormous costs, from disengaged employees to failed strategies and reputational damage.
For the executive search profession, the opportunity is clear. By helping clients align selection decisions with the characteristics that truly drive effectiveness, search consultants can ensure that those who rise to the top are not just the most visible, but the most capable and ultimately the most successful.
by Ryne A. Sherman, PhD; Chief Science Officer, Data Science, Hogan Assessments
Source: aesc.org
After being laid off, 57% of U.S. workers said they’ve felt pressured to accept a lower salary to get back to work, according to Glassdoor poll results released Tuesday. Women, the results show, feel greater pressure, with 63% saying they’d considered a lower offer compared to 52% of men.
Celebrate the big wins. They are well-deserved products of your efforts. Accept the laurel, frame it, show it off. Celebrating the big win doesn’t translate into complacency. It implies acknowledgment. The idea behind the resting-on-laurels effect is not to minimize your accomplishments. It is to use them as springboards and to be mindful that they don’t become traps.
The other day someone mentioned a friend who had recently retired. Then they paused. “Well… semi-retired,” they said. “He doesn’t really like calling himself retired.” I understood immediately. Not because I know the man. I don’t. But because I recognised what he was trying to protect. His relevance.
