Tại sao các tổ chức chọn nhầm nhà lãnh đạo

Plenty of people have worked under a manager who appears confident, articulate and highly visible – yet they struggle to lead their team effectively. Team members can become disengaged, decision–making slows and performance declines. But despite this, the same people always seem to progress through the hierarchy.

Unfortunately, this is not unusual. In many organisations, leadership potential is assessed using signals that are easy to observe. These could be confidence, charisma or communication style – rather than the traits that actually produce effective teams.

This creates a persistent problem. Organisations promote people who look like leaders rather than those who demonstrate the capabilities required to lead.

Promotion decisions are often made under conditions of uncertainty. Bosses will not always have the right information to be able to predict a candidate’s leadership ability. This is why they fall back on visible cues.

These cues are generally based on how someone performs in meetings, how well they present their ideas, or how comfortable they appear when speaking to senior management or stakeholders. Those who show self–confidence and authority while communicating tend to be perceived as ready for leadership.

But these signals can be misleading. In my ongoing doctoral research on inclusive leadership, I have found that effective leadership is less about visibility and more about how leaders support and develop their teams.

Studies have found that people who show dominance and confidence can be perceived by management as more capable and ready for leadership, despite objective measures of performance which do not always support this judgement.

Other research has even shown that traits such as narcissism can increase the likelihood of someone becoming a leader – even though these qualities do not predict leadership effectiveness.

When evaluating leaders, managers have been found to confuse confidence with competence. Large studies on personality and leadership show that people with traits like extroversion are more likely to become leaders. But again, these traits are not always strong predictors that someone will be effective in the job.

The qualities that matter more

While confidence and visibility are essential attributes in leadership, they are not core drivers of success. Research shows other capabilities can matter more. These include sound judgement, the ability to help others develop, emotional intelligence and the capacity to build an environment where employees feel valued. This might mean staff feeling free to share ideas or raise concerns, for example.

Teams perform more effectively when employees feel valued in their workplace. And an openness to sharing ideas and admitting mistakes without fear are also essential factors in building strong teams.

Studies of emotional intelligence suggest that leaders who demonstrate empathy and interpersonal awareness are often better able to build trust and keep their team performing at a high level. The true measure of leadership has been shown to be reflected in team performance and outcomes, rather than a leader’s personal charisma or visibility.

Yet these capabilities can be hard to measure during the promotion process. They develop gradually through experience and are often demonstrated through everyday interactions, rather than visible moments like presentations or meetings. As a result, organisations may overlook people who have strong leadership potential – simply because their contributions are less visible.

Promoting the wrong leaders can have significant consequences. When employers reward visibility over capability, they risk creating a culture where self–promotion is prioritised over collaboration. Teams will be more reluctant to challenge decisions or give fresh perspectives, especially if leaders appear confident but are not open to feedback.

Over time this can weaken decision–making, reduce employees’ engagement and ultimately increase staff turnover. Large meta-analysis also shows strong links between a manager’s behaviour, their employees’ engagement and business outcomes (measured in things like productivity and customer satisfaction) .

Promotion systems that favour confidence and visibility can also affect diversity within leadership teams. People who communicate differently or who are less inclined to talk up their achievements could be overlooked even if they demonstrate strong leadership skills. This can result in leadership teams that lack diversity in thinking and experience, as similar traits and communication styles are repeatedly rewarded.

If organisations want to improve, they must look past the most visible signals of leadership potential. Instead, they could focus on evidence of how people support and develop their teams before they reach leadership level, by looking at things like how they mentor colleagues, create a cohesive teamwork culture or respond to challenges with other workers.

Organisations can gather broader feedback on potential leaders from peers or team–based assessments. This allows them to create a more accurate picture of how someone leads in practice.

And leadership development programmes can help organisations learn how to identify people who demonstrate strong skills but who do not necessarily fit those traditional leadership stereotypes.

Modern workplaces are becoming more complex, with remote working and the rapid adoption of AI changing how employees are organised and managed. Leaders must be able to adapt through these challenges, while managing diverse teams. In these environments, the ability to listen, collaborate and support staff can be far more important than simply projecting confidence.

Imran Mir does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.