Why Incompetent Leaders Rise and Shine?

The Paradox of Praising Ineffective Leadership

From ancient emperors to modern CEOs, history is filled with leaders whose actual abilities lag far behind their accolades. Yet time and again, these incompetent leaders are celebrated by their followers or the public. This paradox is exemplified by the tale of two polar explorers: Ernest Shackleton and Roald Amundsen. Shackleton, famed for his dramatic Antarctic survival story, “tried and spectacularly failed” twice to reach the South Pole – but became one of the most celebrated explorers of his time. In contrast, his contemporary Amundsen quietly and competently achieved polar firsts (navigating the Northwest Passage and winning the race to the South Pole in 1911) with meticulous planning and little drama. Yet Amundsen is rarely mentioned in popular lore. The comparison highlights a perplexing trend: we often glorify “swashbuckling” leaders who create excitement (even out of their own failures) while overlooking those whose effective leadership makes success look “almost boring”. Why do charisma, bold narratives, or mere position sometimes eclipse actual competence in leadership? This article explores the psychological biases, cultural narratives, media dynamics, and organizational forces that lead communities and organizations to celebrate incompetent leaders – and draws lessons for how we can foster a healthier leadership culture.

Leading research confirms that the problem is widespread. Surveys show that bad leaders are disturbingly common and costly: according to Gallup, about 75% of employees quit their jobs because of issues with their boss. Incompetent leadership is a top cause of low engagement and high turnover, yet paradoxically these same flawed leaders often rise to the top and even win praise. In the following sections, we examine how cognitive biases (like mistaking confidence for competence), social dynamics (like the “halo effect” and groupthink), and cultural myths (the “heroic leader” trope) contribute to this phenomenon. We will also look at historical and modern case studies – from disaster-prone explorers and misguided generals to overhyped CEOs – to understand why we applaud leaders who don’t deserve it. Finally, we consider practical implications for businesses: how to recognize the “action fallacy” and avoid the trap of celebrating style over substance, and how to develop and promote truly competent leaders.

(Before proceeding, it’s important to clarify that “incompetent” here means a leader who consistently lacks the ability, integrity, or effectiveness to fulfill their role successfully – not just one who makes occasional mistakes. Celebrating such a leader implies that, despite poor performance or decision-making, they receive undue adulation, promotions, or credit.)

“Incompetence becomes invisible when applause is louder than accountability.”
— Aymen Saihati, MS – The Culture Architect

Historical and Modern Examples of Celebrated Incompetence

Throughout history, there have been leaders revered despite obvious failures or incompetence. Often, a compelling narrative or image shielded these individuals from criticism. We have already seen how Ernest Shackleton’s failed expeditions earned him an almost mythic status due to the gripping story of survival, whereas a more competent (but low-key) peer like Amundsen got comparatively little fanfare. This pattern – story over substance – recurs in many arenas:

Military and Political Figures: History books and folklore include generals and rulers who were inept strategists yet lionized as heroes. For example, British General Bernard Montgomery was overly cautious and made missteps in WWII, but was celebrated in the media after key victories. Earlier, Major General George Custer, whose rash decisions led to disaster at Little Bighorn, had been acclaimed as a dashing Civil War hero. In politics, leaders with poor governance records have maintained cult followings through propaganda and nationalism. Authoritarian regimes often elevate a leader’s persona to near deity status – consider how some totalitarian states enforce a “cult of personality” that celebrates the leader incessantly, even when their policies keep the nation impoverished. These cases show how power structures and propaganda can prop up an incompetent leader’s image.
Corporate “Hero” CEOs: In modern business, the cult of the celebrity CEO has led to many overhyped leaders who were later revealed as incompetent or worse. A striking example is Elizabeth Holmes, founder of Theranos. For years, Holmes was “a media star and celebrated visionary, appearing on the cover of Fortune, Forbes and Inc.”, crowned the youngest self-made billionaire. High-profile figures (even a U.S. Vice President) praised her “inspirational” leadership. Yet behind the charisma and black turtleneck was a massive fraud – her blood-testing technology never actually worked. Holmes’s story demonstrates how a compelling narrative (a young female tech genius revolutionizing healthcare) and personal charisma can cause the business community and media to celebrate a leader’s supposed genius without real evidence of competence. Another infamous case is WeWork’s cofounder Adam Neumann. He was so adept at selling a grand vision that he “dazzled Wall Street”, inflating WeWork’s valuation to $47 billion at its peak. Neumann cultivated a larger-than-life persona (complete with wild parties and talk of living forever) that enamored investors and the press. It wasn’t until the company’s IPO prospectus revealed reckless management and massive losses that the bubble burst. By then, Neumann had been hailed as a visionary – a prime example of perception outpacing reality.
Organizational Folk Heroes: Even in smaller organizations or community groups, one sees examples of leaders who are ineffective yet adored by their teams or constituents. Sometimes a founder or long-time manager is beloved for their passion or personal kindness despite consistently poor results. Their loyal followers might celebrate them at retirement parties or community events, focusing on good intentions or anecdotes while overlooking operational incompetence. In family businesses, an heir might be kept as figurehead CEO out of tradition, praised as the company’s face while professional managers quietly fix their mistakes behind the scenes. These scenarios arise from loyalty, tradition, or group identity overriding objective evaluation of performance.

Across these examples, a common theme emerges: the image of leadership separates from the reality of competence. Incompetent leaders manage to win celebration through a mix of charisma, narrative, and structural insulation (e.g. they are protected by sycophants or propaganda). Understanding why this happens requires probing the human psychology that evaluates leaders and the social dynamics that allow the unskilled to shine.

Psychological Factors: Confidence, Biases, and the Allure of Charisma

One major reason we celebrate incompetent leaders is that human psychology is riddled with biases in how we perceive and evaluate people in authority. Research shows that we are often “mistaking confidence for competence”. In other words, if someone looks and sounds like a leader – speaking boldly, projecting certainty – we tend to assume they are a capable leader. This cognitive bias works in several interlocking ways:

Overconfidence Effect & Dunning–Kruger Syndrome: Incompetent individuals often overestimate their own ability, projecting unwarranted confidence. Psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger famously showed that people with low ability in a domain can be “unskilled and unaware of it,” lacking the insight to recognize their deficits. In fact, “if you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent” – a phenomenon now known as the Dunning–Kruger effect. In leadership contexts, this means a poor leader may sincerely believe they are doing great, and broadcast that confidence. Many followers find such confidence reassuring. They might interpret the leader’s certainty and decisiveness as evidence of competence, even if it’s bluster. Compounding this, competent people tend to be more self-critical and humble (they know what they don’t know), which can make them appear less confident. This creates a perverse situation where the less capable person appears more capable because they loudly celebrate their own (imagined) excellence, whereas the truly capable may under-sell themselves. Thus, overconfidence fools observers, and even the leader’s own team, into overlooking incompetence.
Halo Effect: The halo effect is a common bias where one positive trait of a person colors our overall impression of them. In the workplace, if a leader has one standout quality – say, they are an inspiring speaker or exude charm – people tend to infer that they are also good at other things like strategic thinking or management (even without evidence). An incompetent leader might be excellent at storytelling or very charismatic, which creates a halo of general goodness. Followers and even superiors then gloss over that leader’s mistakes or lack of technical skill, because unconsciously they associate the leader’s charisma, attractiveness, or other admired trait with overall competence. This bias is powerful; we “form a positive overall impression…based on a single characteristic”, as psychologists note. For example, a manager who’s great at public speaking in all-hands meetings might be celebrated as a “visionary leader,” even if their ideas are shallow and their team’s results are poor. The halo effect helps explain why many celebrated leaders turn out to have feet of clay once you look past the glossy surface.
Attribution Error & The Romance of Leadership: Humans love a good story, especially one with clear heroes and villains. There is a tendency for us to attribute outcomes to individual leaders, inflating their impact – what scholars Meindl et al. called the “Romance of Leadership” bias. Subordinates and observers often credit the leader personally for successes (even if those came from team effort or external factors) and may even find excuses for failures. For instance, if an incompetent CEO happens to preside during a booming market, people might praise their “brilliant strategy”, attributing strong profits entirely to them. This inflated attribution can create folklore of leadership that is disconnected from reality. The media reinforces this by making the CEO the face of everything – good or bad – that a company does. As management expert Tim Pollock notes, “the media’s propensity to assign good and bad firm outcomes to the CEO, regardless of their actual level of responsibility or ability to influence them,” enhances the CEO’s public image and status. In essence, people want to believe in heroic leaders who single-handedly drive success. This narrative bias leads us to celebrate leaders for outcomes they didn’t actually produce. Incompetent leaders can ride this wave of perception so long as things look good on the surface.
Cognitive Dissonance and Social Pressure: Once a leader has been anointed as great – whether by election, appointment, or media hype – followers have psychological incentives to rationalize that choice. Admitting that a celebrated leader is actually incompetent creates discomfort (cognitive dissonance), especially if we ourselves supported or admired them. It’s often easier for people to filter information and focus on any positive signs to justify why the leader is being celebrated. This bias gets reinforced by social pressure and groupthink: if everyone in your peer group or company is cheering the boss, individuals are reluctant to be the lone voice of dissent. They may convince themselves that “maybe I’m missing something; everyone says our leader is brilliant, so it must be true.” This emperor’s-new-clothes dynamic can keep an incompetent leader on a pedestal far longer than one might expect, simply because no one wants to be the first to point out the obvious. Group loyalty and fear of rocking the boat can thus perpetuate public celebration of a poor leader, while any doubts are discussed only in private (if at all).
Charisma and The “Superstar” Leader Illusion: Many incompetents who rise to fame have an abundance of charisma – an alluring personal style that captivates audiences. Charismatic leaders use emotional appeal, vision, and sometimes theatrical flair to gain followers’ devotion. While charisma can be a valuable trait, it’s not a substitute for competence. Unfortunately, people often conflate the two. If a leader makes us feel inspired or excited, we tend to assume they must be leading us somewhere great. This is why some populist political leaders with poor policy grasp still amass ardent supporters – their rallies spark passion and they exude confidence, which followers interpret as strength. Charisma also often comes with exceptional communication skills, allowing an incompetent leader to spin failures as “temporary setbacks” or to pin blame on others, all while taking credit for any success. The result is a charismatic bubble in which followers only see the curated image of success and celebrate the leader’s persona rather than their actual performance. Charisma can thus short-circuit our normal critical evaluation, operating almost like a psychological spell that keeps inconvenient truths out of the spotlight.

These psychological factors help explain how individuals who lack ability can nonetheless appear to be great leaders in the eyes of others. As one leadership expert wryly observed: “Hot air rises — and so, unfortunately, do many of the aspiring leaders who spout it.” We continue to “mistake confidence for competence”, promoting and praising the loud and self-assured far more than the actually capable. In fact, multiple studies find that if you are “extroverted, talkative, highly self-confident, and appear perpetually busy,” people are more likely to perceive you as leadership material. These traits grab attention and mimic our stereotypes of strong leaders. Research suggests such individuals are more likely to get noticed, mentored, and rewarded – regardless of whether their talk actually adds value or their busyness produces results. This creates a pipeline problem: overconfident “babblers and braggarts” rise up, while quieter but more competent contributors get overlooked. In short, our minds are often tricked by style over substance. We celebrate the show of leadership – the rousing speech, the bold declaration, the crisis “rescue” – even if that show masks ineptitude or outright harm.

Cultural Narratives, Media Influence, and Power Structures

Beyond individual psychology, there are broader sociocultural forces that cause communities and organizations to lionize the wrong people. Society creates narratives about what a “great leader” looks like, and the media amplifies those stories, often independent of reality. Meanwhile, organizational power structures can insulate and elevate inept leaders. Several interrelated factors play a role:

The Heroic Leadership Narrative: Culturally, we are drawn to hero stories. From mythology to modern business press, leaders are often cast as heroes overcoming adversity. We expect leaders to be bold, decisive actors who take charge in difficult times. This narrative bias means we sometimes prefer a dramatic story over a mundane truth. Management historian Martin Gutmann calls this the “action fallacy” – equating leadership with noise, action, and sensational outcomes. We “love a good story – how one overcomes adversity and finally emerges strong and successful”, as Gutmann puts it, and thus we reward leaders who provide such stories. The catch, however, is that incompetent leaders often create the very crises they then loudly “resolve.” Gutmann notes that many of those tales of triumph are “self-inflicted” – a bad leader steers the organization into trouble and then manages to survive it, appearing as a hero in the process. Meanwhile, a truly competent leader would have likely avoided the crisis entirely, keeping things running smoothly (albeit without fanfare). This reveals a cultural irony: bad leadership is exciting, while good leadership is boring. Pop culture and even business case studies often celebrate the “captains of crisis” – think of the turnaround artist who swoops in amidst chaos (even if it was partly of their own making) – far more than the quiet achievers who steadily deliver results. Over time, this glorification of dramatic leadership skews our collective perception. We start to doubt that someone can be a great leader unless they have a flair for drama or a mythic backstory. Consequently, flamboyant but incompetent figures can tap into the hero narrative and capture public imagination, while steady competent managers are dismissed as lacking “charisma” or not being “visionary” enough.
Media Hype and the Celebrity Leader: The media has a powerful role in manufacturing celebrity leaders. In the corporate world especially, the late 20th century saw what Rakesh Khurana termed an “irrational quest for charismatic CEOs”. High-profile CEOs began to be portrayed as genius saviors who could single-handedly transform companies. Business magazines splashed charismatic executives on their covers, and boards felt pressure to hire star personalities. The result, as Harvard research suggested, was that some companies passed over competent insiders in favor of charismatic outsiders who fit the media narrative of a bold savior. AT&T’s hiring of outsider CEO John Armstrong in the 1990s is one example: his arrival drove the stock up on hype, but his aggressive (and ultimately disastrous) strategies nearly wrecked the firm. During the same era, debacles like Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco revealed “incompetent, unethical, and massively self-serving individuals atop corporations” – executives who had been lauded as visionaries until their house of cards collapsed. In many of these cases, the media’s romance with the leader enabled the rise of incompetence. Journalists and commentators often focus on simplistic, personality-driven stories (“the genius founder,” “the maverick CEO,” “the turnaround king”) because they captivate readers and viewers. Once a leader is cast in that spotlight, it can create a feedback loop: positive press boosts their reputation, which grants them more power and latitude, which they can use to stage more publicity – all the while real performance might be mediocre or worse. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, media tend to attribute all outcomes to the leader, which means a clever but inept leader can spin any good news into personal accolades. This dynamic was evident with Adam Neumann (celebrated in glossy profiles long after WeWork’s fundamentals were known to be shaky) and Elizabeth Holmes (who curated an image so compelling that critical inquiry lagged behind the glowing features). In summary, media amplification and cultural hero-worship create an environment where flashy, narrative-friendly leaders are celebrated by default – competence is assumed rather than proven.
Power Structures and Echo Chambers: Inside organizations or communities, the power dynamics can protect and even elevate incompetent leaders. One reason such leaders get celebrated is that they often surround themselves with yes-men/yes-women and eliminate dissenting voices. Subordinates who want to keep their jobs quickly learn not to question the leader’s decisions publicly. Instead, they may heap praise upwards, creating an echo chamber of positive feedback around the leader. This not only strokes the leader’s ego but also creates an external illusion that the leader is truly respected and admired by all. In extreme cases, organizations develop a culture of fear where no one dares to point out the leader’s mistakes – reminiscent of the fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” where everyone applauds the emperor’s nonexistent finery. In such climates, an incompetent leader’s flawed initiatives might still be celebrated in staff meetings or company newsletters, because no one is willing to break rank. Additionally, incompetent leaders often use tools of power (rewards, punishments, controlling information) to manage perceptions. They might take credit for others’ accomplishments and deflect blame for failures onto lower levels, preserving an image of success. If the leader sits atop a strong hierarchy, those below may feel obligated to publicly celebrate them (for example, showering them with awards, applause, “leader of the year” plaques, etc.), regardless of private opinions. In community or political contexts, power structures like patronage or clientelism similarly prop up incompetent figures – as long as the leader feeds certain loyalists benefits, those loyalists will sing their praises to the public. Thus, structural incentives (fear, career ambition, loyalty rewards) can manufacture a false celebration of a leader’s prowess.
Cultural Norms of Deference: In some cultures or industries, there is a norm of high deference to leaders. For instance, in very hierarchical or collectivist cultures, once someone is in a top position, subordinates feel a cultural duty to show respect and admiration, regardless of the leader’s competence. Questioning or criticizing the leader would be seen as disrespectful or disloyal. This dynamic often results in ritual celebration of leaders – from cheering speeches to lavish retirement parties – even when everyone knows the leader was mediocre. Similarly, long tenure can translate into revered status (“He’s been our CEO for 20 years, we must honor his leadership”), when in fact the longevity may owe to lack of alternatives or stagnation rather than exemplary skill. Narratives of loyalty and tradition can thus override critical evaluation. In organizations with strong corporate cultures, employees might internalize messages like “We have the best leadership team,” creating a shared belief in the leader’s greatness as part of the company identity. Such cultural conditioning makes it very hard to voice or even acknowledge a leader’s incompetence, so celebration becomes a kind of default social script.

In summary, cultural and structural forces can strongly reinforce the celebration of incompetent leaders. The media loves a good hero narrative and tends to glorify charismatic figureheads. Society at large has ingrained stories about larger-than-life leaders that can cloud our judgment. Within organizations, power, politics, and culture can create artificial applause for those at the top. All these forces make it possible – even easy – for an ineffective leader to be lauded as a success, sometimes until a dramatic failure makes the truth unavoidable.

The Real Costs of Celebrating Incompetence

Why does it matter if we occasionally put the wrong person on a pedestal? Incompetent leadership is not just a harmless quirk of human nature – it has serious practical consequences for organizations, employees, and communities. Celebrating and empowering the wrong leaders can cause damage in multiple ways:

Poor Performance and Lost Opportunities: When an incompetent person is at the helm, decisions and strategies suffer. They may pursue misguided projects, miss critical threats, or stifle innovation due to ego or lack of skill. In the short term, the impact might be masked by a strong economy or a talented team beneath them. But over time, organizational performance lags. Consider that during the tenure of a celebrated yet inept CEO, a company might lose market share or accumulate problems that only surface later. Praising the leader despite these issues delays corrective action. A competent leader could have seized opportunities or fixed issues earlier; instead, the organization under an incompetent celebrated leader becomes complacent, coasting on the leader’s perceived greatness while competitors forge ahead.
Employee Disengagement and Turnover: Gallup surveys have consistently found that the number one factor in employee engagement and retention is the quality of leadership (particularly one’s direct manager). When employees see an incompetent leader being blindly celebrated, it’s often demoralizing. The staff on the ground is usually well aware of the leader’s shortcomings – they experience the poor planning, the chaotic direction, the blame games. Watching that leader get lauded with promotions or awards can breed cynicism and frustration. Many high performers will decide to leave rather than work under poor leadership that is propped up by favoritism or image. Indeed, 75% of people who quit cite their boss as a primary reason. Those who stay may emotionally disengage, doing the bare minimum since they feel meritocracy is broken. In this way, celebrating an incompetent leader directly undercuts morale and drives talent out the door, hurting the organization’s human capital.
Toxic Culture and Ethical Erosion: Incompetent leaders who rely on image over substance often develop toxic behaviors: scapegoating others, manipulating perceptions, silencing critics. If they are continually praised, it sends a signal throughout the organization that outcomes don’t matter – only politics does. This can normalize unethical behavior. Subordinates may mimic the leader’s shortcuts or lack of accountability. In extreme cases (e.g., Enron under Skilling and Lay), a cult of personality around flawed leaders fostered an internal culture of rule-bending and deception, contributing to scandal. Even less dramatic cases can lead to ethical drift, as people rationalize the leader’s incompetence and cover-ups to keep the celebration going. The leader’s inability to admit faults (common among those who crave celebration) means problems fester. By the time reality catches up – a major safety incident, financial loss, or public scandal – the damage is done to stakeholders and the organization’s reputation.
Failure of Mission and Public Harm: Incompetent leadership in public or non-profit sectors can have society-wide costs. A community that keeps re-electing a populist mayor who can’t manage finances will eventually face budget crises that hurt services. A celebrated but inept national leader can mismanage crises (disaster response, public health, etc.), costing lives or livelihoods. Even in business, if we celebrate an incompetent executive of a bank or tech company, the eventual collapse (when it comes) can ripple out to employees, investors, and customers. In Theranos’s case, for example, the prolonged celebration of Elizabeth Holmes allowed a faulty blood test to potentially endanger patients and mislead doctors for years. The longer incompetence is celebrated and unchecked, the higher the eventual cost when reality can no longer be deferred.

In essence, celebrating incompetent leaders is a high-risk, short-sighted habit. It may satisfy our craving for heroic leadership stories in the moment, but it undermines real excellence and often sets up painful reckonings later. By recognizing the costs, leaders and followers alike can be motivated to break out of this pattern and demand true competence and accountability from those in charge.

Lessons for Businesses and Leadership Development

If we understand why we mistakenly celebrate incompetent leaders, we can take concrete steps to change course. Organizations and individuals can apply the following lessons to promote a culture that values competence over charisma:

Redefine Leadership Criteria – Focus on Results and Integrity: Companies should critically examine how they define and identify leadership potential. Instead of equating confidence, charisma, or showiness with leadership, emphasize measurable competence, track record, and character. For example, ensure promotions and hiring for leadership roles prioritize demonstrated ability to deliver results ethically and to effectively support a team. This might mean rewriting leadership competency models to include traits like humility, empathy, integrity, and accountability – qualities which research shows correlate with effective leadership. By formalizing better criteria, organizations can counteract unconscious biases. As Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic bluntly noted, too many organizations have been “selecting leaders not on the basis of talent, merit, or potential”, but on superficial traits. It’s time to flip that script.
Beware the Confidence–Competence Trap: Educate hiring managers and teams about the common biases that lead us to choose the wrong leaders. Make it part of leadership training to discuss phenomena like the Dunning–Kruger effect and the tendency to be swayed by confidence. By raising awareness, organizations can encourage decision-makers to pause when they encounter a very bold, charismatic candidate – and to dig deeper into actual competencies and past behaviors. Structured interviews, work-sample tests, and reference checks can help reveal substance behind the swagger. Conversely, create space to recognize “quiet” leaders. For instance, implement 360-degree feedback and performance reviews that highlight behind-the-scenes contributions. Often it is team members or peers who know who is truly competent versus who is just talking a good game. Solicit and listen to that input rather than relying on who talks the most in meetings. Data-driven assessments and multi-perspective evaluations can reduce over-reliance on gut feeling (which is where biases live).
Foster a Culture of Open Communication (Kill the Yes-Men): One practical way to prevent incompetent leaders from being blindly celebrated is to encourage candid feedback and dissent in your culture. Leaders should actively solicit feedback on their ideas and performance – and reward employees who speak up with constructive criticism. This can be reinforced by mechanisms like anonymous surveys or town halls with Q&A where tough questions are welcomed. The goal is to puncture any echo chamber before it forms. Top management can set the tone by modeling humility (for example, admitting their own mistakes publicly) and not punishing or marginalizing those who voice concerns. When employees see that it’s safe to call out problems or question leadership decisions, incompetent leadership cannot hide behind flattery and false accolades. Over time, a culture of transparency will naturally reveal who is contributing and who isn’t, ensuring that praise is directed by merit, not politics. In short: create an environment where shouting “the emperor has no clothes” is encouraged when true – and acted upon.
Align Incentives and Accountability: Often, organizations inadvertently reward the wrong behaviors – for instance, giving the biggest bonuses or public praise to leaders who “save the day” in a crisis, even if their poor planning caused the fire drill. To change this, adjust incentives to favor steady, preventive leadership. Recognize managers whose teams consistently hit goals without drama, or who develop employees and plan for risks (even if they don’t trumpet their work). When celebrating successes, highlight team efforts and specific contributions rather than attributing everything to the leader at the top. This reduces the “hero CEO” culture and sends a message that no single leader is above scrutiny. Moreover, institute clear accountability: if a leader is underperforming, address it honestly rather than glossing it over. Boards and executives must be willing to remove or retrain leaders who aren’t meeting competencies, even if they are likable or popular. A meritocratic system, where leadership is a role one must continually earn through performance, will deter the rise of persistent incompetence.
Diversify Leadership and Challenge Stereotypes: Research suggests that part of the reason we end up with so many celebrated-yet-incompetent leaders is that we’re stuck with an outdated stereotype of what a leader looks like (often a confident, assertive male). By embracing diversity in leadership – not just demographic diversity, but diversity of personality and style – organizations can broaden their view of effective leadership. For example, introverted or highly empathetic individuals might be passed over in a traditional model, but these traits can make for excellent, steady leaders. Encouraging diversity also means training all employees to recognize their implicit biases (e.g., equating assertiveness with competence). As Chamorro-Premuzic has argued, if we selected leaders based on talent and potential, we’d naturally end up with more women and individuals with “feminine” leadership traits in charge, because these traits (emotional intelligence, humility, etc.) often correlate with better leadership outcomes. The takeaway: challenge your organization to rethink what great leadership looks like, moving beyond the old archetypes. This will open the door for more truly competent leaders to rise and be recognized, rather than being edged out by those who simply fit the mold.
Promote “Quiet Leadership” as a Virtue: To counter the glamorization of dramatic, crisis-oriented leadership, explicitly promote the value of quiet, effective leadership. Share case studies internally of leaders who prevented big problems or achieved steady growth – even if they aren’t household names. In leadership development programs, emphasize skills like long-term planning, listening, team empowerment, and self-awareness. Martin Gutmann’s TEDx talk highlights how we often overlook leaders who “make their leadership look effortless” by keeping their teams running smoothly. Organizations can begin to celebrate these unsung heroes. For instance, institute an award for “Operational Excellence” or “Leader who Makes a Difference” based on peer nominations for those who exemplify reliable, people-centered leadership. By publicly recognizing such individuals, you send a message to the entire workforce that substance matters more than spectacle. As one LinkedIn commentary on Gutmann’s talk put it, we need to shift focus “from the ‘captains of crisis’ to the ‘quiet leaders’ who truly make a difference”. Over time, this can reshape the narrative so that employees and managers alike learn to appreciate the competent, behind-the-scenes leaders rather than only the loud, spotlight-seeking ones.

By implementing these strategies, businesses and communities can reduce the celebration of incompetence and instead reward the leaders who genuinely drive success. It’s about changing both mindset and systems: educate people to see through the charisma illusion, and put in place processes that elevate evidence of ability over image. This won’t happen overnight, but each step – whether it’s a more rigorous promotion process or a CEO being open to criticism – builds a healthier leadership culture. In that culture, competence will be celebrated, as it should be, and incompetence will find it harder to hide behind applause.

Conclusion

It is a curious and troubling irony that societies and organizations often find themselves cheering on leaders who are failing them. Whether through psychological quirks – like our weakness for confidence and story – or through social dynamics – like media hype and deference to authority – we have seen how incompetent leaders can attract unearned celebration. History and current events offer plenty of cautionary tales, from Shackleton to Theranos, that warn us of the dangers in elevating style over substance. The cost of this collective misjudgment is high: good people leave their jobs, companies sink, communities suffer, and truly capable leaders don’t get the opportunities they deserve.

The encouraging news is that awareness is the first step to change. By shining a light on why we celebrate incompetent leaders, we can begin to reverse the trend. Leaders at the top can reflect on their own practices – are we inadvertently favoring the loud over the effective? – and make corrections to how they hire, promote, and reward. Employees and citizens, equipped with understanding of these biases, can become more discerning in whom they place their trust and adulation. Rather than being swept up in charisma or narratives alone, we can ask: “What has this person actually accomplished? Who have they helped? Do their actions match their words?” Celebrations can then be reserved for authentic achievement and positive impact, not just positional authority or showmanship.

In a world increasingly focused on accountability and results, the time is ripe to recalibrate our definition of great leadership. The leaders worth celebrating are those who combine vision with competence, confidence with humility, and popularity with proven performance. By learning from past mistakes and applying rigorous, human-centered approaches to evaluating leaders, organizations can ensure that their heroes are genuine. In doing so, we not only avoid the pitfalls of incompetent leadership but also make room to elevate those “quietly” excellent leaders who previously might have been overlooked. Ultimately, a culture that celebrates true competence and constructive leadership will benefit employees, companies, and communities alike – yielding sustainable success and trust in those who lead.

References (APA style):

Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2019). Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders? (And How to Fix It). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2024, May 1). Why so many bad bosses still rise to the top. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from McKinsey website: .
Cooks-Campbell, A. (2023, August 30). What’s the halo effect? BetterUp. Retrieved from BetterUp blog: .
Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134.
Gallup (2017). State of the American Manager: Statistically, 75% of voluntary turnover is due to bad bosses. Washington, DC: Gallup Press. (As cited in Schwantes, 2017).
Green, P., & Lawrence, R. (2023). Why You Should Amplify Your Amundsens and Dampen Your Shackletons. Humanizing Work Podcast (Episode 39). Transcript retrieved from Humanizing Work: .
Gutmann, M. (2024, May 23). Why do we celebrate incompetent leaders? [TEDx Talk]. TEDxBerlin. (Content discussed in text: Gutmann, as cited in Craemer, 2023).
Lambert, C. (2002, September–October). The cult of the charismatic CEO. Harvard Magazine, 105(1). Retrieved from Harvard Magazine: .
Pollock, T. G. (2023, April 4). UT Haslam management expert offers insights on CEO reputation and safety. Haslam College of Business News. Retrieved from utk.edu: .
Schwantes, M. (2017, October 23). Why are your employees quitting? It comes down to these 6 reasons. Inc. Retrieved from Inc.com: (citing Gallup data on managers and turnover).
Theranos fraud case – media hype example: IntegrityLine. (2023, Nov 22). Elizabeth Holmes & the Theranos case: History of a fraud scandal. Retrieved from IntegrityLine Blog: .