“You need more executive presence.”

I’ve heard versions of this phrase throughout my career.

And I have heard from clients that lack of executive presence was the reason someone was not being promoted.

Sometimes it meant:

• not confident enough
• not polished enough
• too quiet
• not visible enough
• not leader-like enough

And it makes me think:

If executive presence simply means charisma, confidence and polish… perhaps organisations should just hire George Clooney.

Of course, communication matters. Presence matters. Leadership presence absolutely matters.

But I increasingly wonder whether we have confused the appearance of leadership with leadership itself.

Because often, what gets labelled “executive presence” is not necessarily leadership capability. It is a set of socially and culturally reinforced performative signals that make people feel more comfortable about their leadership, which may show up as:

• Confidence
• Verbal fluency
• Decisiveness
• Dominance
• Charisma
• Polish
• Gravitas

Many of these qualities can be valuable, but they can also become proxies for leadership capability itself.

And that is where the trap begins.

Leadership Emergence Is Not Leadership Effectiveness

In many organisations, executive presence still tends to favour people who fit a relatively narrow leadership prototype: people who look, sound and behave in ways that align with traditional expectations of authority.

The people who appear confident are often assumed to be more competent. The people who think and speak quickly are assumed to be smart and strategic. The people who command attention are assumed to be natural leaders.

Yet confidence and competence are not the same thing.

Especially the appearance of confidence is not the same as competence.

Studies referred to by Dr Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic suggests that the overlap between confidence and competence is a mere 9%.

Research also distinguishes between leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness.

Leadership emergence is about who gets noticed, selected or perceived as leadership material.

Leadership effectiveness is about who actually leads well over time.

The two are not always the same.

Yet many organisational systems still favour the signals associated with leadership emergence, such as:

• confidence
• verbal dominance
• charisma
• visibility
• decisiveness under pressure
• rapid responses

These qualities can create the appearance of leadership quickly.

But they do not necessarily predict judgement, trustworthiness, inclusion, discernment, or the ability to lead sustainably through complexity and change.

This matters because the people who emerge as leaders shape organisational culture, decision-making and the future leadership pipeline itself.

If organisations consistently reward a narrow range of leadership signals, they risk overlooking highly capable people whose strengths are less immediately visible.

The Leaders We May Be Missing

Some of the most thoughtful, effective leaders I’ve worked with do not fit the traditional mould of executive presence at all.

They may be quieter in group settings, more reflective before speaking, less inclined toward self-promotion, more focused on substance than style.

And yet:

• they listen well
• they build commitment rather than compliance
• they bring people with them through change
• they navigate complexity thoughtfully
• people feel psychologically safe around them

Most importantly, their teams trust them deeply and become loyal. Their teams often contribute their absolute best to achieve results together.

These are essential leadership qualities for high performance and adaptability.

Particularly in environments shaped by uncertainty, rapid change and increasing complexity, leadership is becoming not just about having all the answers quickly and more about creating clarity, trust, adaptability and thoughtful action.

Ironically, some of the very qualities organisations need – listening, inclusion, discernment, calmness under pressure and thoughtful decision-making – can become filtered out by the way leadership presence is still assessed.

There is another complication in uncertain environments.

In times of ambiguity and rapid change, people often gravitate toward leaders who project certainty and confidence. Certainty can feel reassuring.

But certainty and wisdom are not always the same thing.

Some of the strongest leaders I’ve worked with are willing to say: “I don’t know yet.” “Let’s think this through carefully.” “We may need to adapt as we learn more.”

It is a mistake to see this as weakness.

It signals maturity, discernment and the ability to lead through complexity without defaulting to performative confidence.

As Brené Brown and Adam Grant have recently explored in conversations about uncertainty and leadership, uncertainty itself is not the enemy. (see this conversation on YouTube)

The challenge is that many leadership cultures still reward the appearance of certainty more than the capacity to navigate uncertainty thoughtfully.

The Cost of Performative Leadership

This has consequences far beyond individual careers.

Leadership pipelines become skewed. Certain leadership styles become overrepresented. Thoughtful capability remains hidden. People begin to feel pressure to perform leadership rather than develop leadership.

I see this particularly with quieter professionals, women, and people from backgrounds where humility or collective orientation were more valued than self-promotion.

Many end up over-monitoring themselves and pretending:

• trying to sound more confident
• trying to be more outspoken
• trying to dress and look more “executive”
• trying to fit a leadership image that never fully feels like them

Over time, this can become exhausting. It can contribute to burnout and constant self-doubt.

In addition to this individual cost, there is a larger, organisational cost.

Some highly capable people quietly opt out of leadership pathways altogether because the dominant models of leadership feel performative, narrow or unsustainable.

Presence Rather Than Performative Presence

I’m not arguing that communication or presence do not matter.

They do.

But perhaps we need to broaden how we think about presence itself.

Years ago, I met a tiny Indian woman in her eighties speaking at a spiritual university in India. Before she even spoke, I could feel her presence across the room of 500 people.

It wasn’t anything she was doing or saying. It was her being.

She was fully present, physically, mentally and emotionally.

People felt it.

Dare I say, I felt a sense of calm and loving kindness.

That experience stayed with me because it challenged many assumptions about what powerful presence actually looks like.

When I coach leaders now, I often encourage them to think less about “executive presence” and more about presence itself.

It is an inside-out approach, rather than worrying about what others see.

Are you mentally present? Emotionally present? Genuinely engaged? Grounded enough to create trust? Able to connect with people rather than simply perform confidence for them?

This kind of leadership presence is within each person’s control, and it builds trust, connection, clarity, and groundedness.

Perhaps the future of leadership requires us to move beyond narrow ideas of executive presence and towards a broader understanding of leadership capability itself.

Because if organisations only reward the appearance of leadership, they may overlook the leaders they most need.

❓Do you think we are trapped by the existing notion of ‘executive presence’?

Written by Megumi Miki, with Anna Reeve and Leigh Gassner, co-founders of Leaders who Listen. We aim to develop leaders who create a listening environment of safety and space within their organisations to enable better decision making, drive growth and innovation, enhance collaboration and inclusion, and manage risk. If you’d like to understand how your leadership team can engage in productive disagreements, contact us about our Leaders who Listen assessment tools, presentations, masterclasses and development programs.