By Nik Kinley
Human history shows a persistent failure to choose leaders suited for power. Capability is often valued over suitability, yet power inevitably changes people, amplifying flaws and undermining judgment. Organisations must assess how candidates handle authority, seek warning signs, and provide support to limit power’s corrosive effects on leadership performance.
As a species, humans seem to be remarkably slow learners sometimes.
Because if the history of leadership teaches us anything, it’s that we should be careful who we give power to. And yet, here we are, thousands of years later, apparently not so careful.
Don’t believe me? Just look across the Atlantic at current political leaders. Either direction will do. You’ll find individuals amazingly skilled in some ways, but whose flaws and negative traits seem to become amplified by the authority and influence they hold.
And our seemingly stubborn capacity to select leaders unsuited to power or vulnerable to its negative effects isn’t just limited to politicians. Because it is equally prevalent in almost every organisation.
Most businesses try to be careful who they select, of course. In fact, many invest heavily in assessment and selection processes. But they tend to focus on what leaders are capable of – on their ability to deliver results – rather than on how they will react to having power. And it’s a critical distinction. Because whether someone has the right qualities to deliver results is fundamentally different from how the power and status that comes with their role will affect them.
There is some overlap between capability and suitability, of course, because if someone is strongly negatively affected by power, their ability to do their job well will eventually be undermined. But the important word in that last sentence was eventually. Because the negative effects of power usually take time to build up, and most of the time, they don’t result in the outright failure of a leader, but more in a gradual undermining of their performance.
And power will have negative effects. No matter how strong a performer someone is, every leader is changed to some degree by the position they hold. By the way, it psychologically distances them from others, and the way it reduces how open people tend to be with them. In some, it can boost their ego and confidence, undermining openness, information flow and decision-making. In others, it can feed insecurity, driving defensive and overly dominant behaviours. Whatever the specifics, everyone is affected to some degree.
So, what are the things organisations can do and look for to ensure that the leaders they select are not just the best short-term performers but also the ones most suited to holding power? It’s a complex subject because how much people are affected by power is the result of a combination of individual, situational and organisational factors. As a result, there are few definitive rules, but there are some general guidelines firms can follow.
- Talk about suitability. The key thing we need to do is to explicitly consider suitability for power separately from capability for role. We need to do this because, otherwise, all we tend to see is someone’s capability – whether they can do what we need them to. This means we need to think through what power will do to people and, through how they use it, the impact they will have on both the people they lead, the culture they create, and the positions they hold.
- Look for red flags, not green lights. Statistically speaking, it is easier to predict failure than success. That’s because no one trait is enough to ensure success, but it can be enough to cause us to fail. And it’s the same with power. It’s easier to predict who will react badly to it than who will manage it effectively. So, rather than focusing on who to select, we’re often better off looking at who to avoid.
- Look for the effects of power already there. If someone already displays behaviours that we know power tends to magnify, then that is usually a warning sign. So, things to look for include overconfidence, a lack of curiosity, a tendency to overgeneralise, a lack of insight into their impact on others, fear of failure, high need for clarity, moralistic judgement, being strongly emotionally led or informed by instincts, and impulsivity.
- Beware of extremes. Individuals who are extremely anything are likely to be very hit-and-miss in how they respond to different situations and pressures. That’s not to say that they’ll always react badly to power. But you’re usually taking more of a gamble with them.
- Think ahead. It often takes time for power to take a toll. So don’t just think about what someone is like now. Think about what they’re going to be like in a few years. (Most of the candidates I meet when assessing CEOs for roles could add value in the short term. It’s the medium and long term when weaknesses usually start to have an effect).
- Be wary of power need and expediency. Having either a very low or high need for power is associated with poorer moral judgements. Specifically, more expedient behaviour and a tendency toward black-and-white, generalised moral judgements. Actually gaining power then tends to make this worse.
- Beware of impression management. People who seem strongly sensitive or concerned with how others view them and engage in a lot of impression management are often negatively affected by power. That’s because their sensitivity is almost always created by insecurity of some sort, which in turn means they are more likely to react defensively to any perceived threat to their power (such as negative feedback or having their thinking questioned).
Selecting leaders isn’t easy at the best of times. The failure rates of corporate leaders are evidence enough of that. But there are guidelines we can use, and until we start using them, our ability to improve who we select isn’t going to improve. In fact, it’s going to get worse.
Maybe there was a time when power was less toxic, and there were more checks and balances in place, when suitability for power was only 20-30% of what mattered. But as leadership roles have become more exposed, less secure, and more pressurised, the negative effects of power can have on people have intensified. And with this, the importance of individuals’ ability to deal with these negative effects has increased dramatically.
Of course, selecting the right people is only part of the solution. It needs to be accompanied by investing in better preparing leaders for how power can affect them, as well as providing them with better training and support to deal with its effects.
We won’t get it right every time, but by more explicitly considering suitability for power, we can at least minimise our mistakes. And perhaps, even learn from them.
Nik Kinley
