Earlier this year, I had the good fortune to be invited to attend the Hogan Summit 2019 in Dubai, which addressed the theme of “Identifying and Developing Your Talent Network”.

Charisma vs Humility

The keynote speech of Hogan Chairman & President, Dr Robert Hogan, focused upon the fascinating distinction between charismatic and humble leaders. This was of particular interest to me as Dr Hogan was essentially reiterating the comparison between what I have termed “effect” and “effectiveness” so often observed within the workplace.  

In my professional experience, it is common to encounter those who concentrate upon producing “effect”.  These are the charismatic individuals, with what Dr Hogan describes as a “stage presence”, whose focus is upon self-promotion; creating great first impressions; maintaining high profiles; and prioritising their career progression.  

In contrast, there are those who are more intent upon achieving effectiveness in the execution of their work activities.  Characteristically understated, they often subscribe to the motto of “my work speaks for itself”.  These are the humble individuals who tend to be data-driven, problem-focused, technically competent, apolitical and collaborative in their approach.

Do Leaders need to be Charismatic?

“Leaders need to be charismatic” is an assertion which has gone largely unchallenged, with the almost automatic assumption being that charismatic leaders are the ones who will drive organisations to success.  Supporting this theme, Dr Hogan referred to an extensive review of job postings which highlighted that vacancies specifying the need for charisma exceeded those requiring humility by a ratio of almost 70 to 1.

Although we can all surely think of charismatic leaders that have championed organisational success, there is a growing body of evidence which now challenges the assumption that leaders need to be charismatic.  For instance, research has concluded that there is a substantial correlation between charisma and narcissism which can be highly destructive in an organisational setting.  Unlike their more humble colleagues, charismatic leaders are less prepared to admit when they are wrong and to take urgent and necessary corrective action.  

Leading Management Professor, Fred Luthans, differentiated between two types of high performers.  High “Emergence” (i.e. charismatic) leaders focus upon networking and politics and tend to be successful in terms of rapid career advancement.  However, it is the high “Effectiveness” (i.e. humble) leaders who tend to ensure high performance within their areas of responsibility by focusing upon operational matters as well as coaching and developing their teams.  Similarly, within his “Good to Great” work, Jim Collins discovered that the CEOs of companies with superior performance were humble and competitive as opposed to highly emergent or charismatic.

Recent Evidence of the Charismatic Bias

Several months ago, I conducted a series of 360° appraisal feedback interviews with senior managers of a prominent international organisation.  During what were development orientated sessions, a commonly reported observation was that those colleagues who focused upon “showcasing” themselves and engaging in unceasing self-promotion where the ones whose careers advanced considerably regardless of their frequently mediocre technical skills and job related competence.  

Similar observations are made in many of the executive coaching sessions I undertake within a wide range of organisational settings where coachees often voice frustration at being passed over for promotion on the basis that they rightly concentrate more upon ensuring organisational effectiveness than upon directing most of their efforts to maintaining a high profile.

Combating an Unintended Consequence

One worrying conclusion to be drawn from these observations is that your organisation’s next generation of effective leaders may well be hidden in plain sight, continuing to be overlooked in terms of high potential programmes, career development initiatives and succession planning activities.  Within this context, considerable benefit is likely to be gained from enhancing internal and external selection practices to enable a better differentiation between candidates’ “effect” and “effectiveness” when predicting leadership potential and making critical senior appointments.