I argued that the underrepresentation of women in leadership was not due to their lack of ability or motivation, but to our inability to detect incompetence in men. When men are considered for leadership positions, the same traits that predict their downfall are commonly mistaken—even celebrated—as a sign of leadership potential or talent.

There is a world of difference between the personality traits and behaviors it takes to be chosen as a leader and the traits and skills you need to be able to lead effectively.

To be clear, many charismatic people are neither psychopathic nor narcissistic, in the same way that many psychopathic and narcissistic people have absolutely no charisma. But when these darkside traits are lubricated with charisma, they can make leaders pretty lethal. The more we rely on charisma as a marker of leadership potential, the more we risk ending up with toxic leaders who are exploiting their charms and influence to grab power and manipulate their followers.

Because of the abstract nature of leadership, charisma often ends up being a convenient proxy for it, especially in the absence of other clear indicators. However, it is a poor proxy, and we ignore the true, objective indicators of leadership talent and performance at our peril.

To improve the quality of leadership, then, we cannot simply focus on merit. We need to be clearer about the leadership qualities we are looking for: emotional intelligence, intellectual capital, social capital, and psychological capital.