The inside of leaders’ personality concerns their values, which function as an internal moral compass and determine how well the leaders will fit in with the culture of the organization and what type of culture they will create. For example, leaders who value tradition will have a strong sense of right and wrong, will prefer hierarchical organizations, and will have little tolerance of disruption and innovation. Put them in a creative environment, and they will struggle. On the other hand, leaders who value affiliation will have a strong desire to get along with others and will focus on building and maintaining strong interpersonal relationships and on working collaboratively. These leaders will not be engaged if their roles are too isolated and the company cultures are overly individualistic. Finally, altruistic leaders will strive to improve other people’s lives and drive progress in the world, so they will suffer if their organizations are purely driven by profits.

Even if the essence of leadership talent is universal, the context a leader is in will shape how they behave, ought to behave, and are evaluated. As a consequence, some leaders may be popular in some cultures but not in others (think Vladimir Putin or Hugo Chávez), and many high-performing managers may struggle when they are moved from one culture to another, for example, from Germany to Indonesia or from a nongovernmental organization to a fintech startup.

Cultures differ in their degree of dominance, with dominant cultures embracing assertive, overconfident, and authoritarian leaders. As we would expect, this dimension of culture is associated with stronger preferences for male leaders and greater resistance to female leaders. Moreover, high-dominance cultures will be less receptive to male leaders who behave in more consultative, nurturing, empathic ways, with clear implications for gender diversity: dominant cultures will have no problem being led only by men and expecting those men to behave in stereotypically masculine ways. Examples of high-dominance national cultures include Mexico, Japan, and Nigeria; low-dominance nations include Sweden, Iceland, and Norway.

But the evidence-based view of a leader is that of someone able to align a group in the pursuit of a common goal. Accordingly, some people may not be in a position of authority but may act as leaders by encouraging people to work together as a coordinated unit. Likewise, some individuals formally in charge may not be operating as leaders or may have little talent for shaping a winning team. This conflict between true ability and a leadership assignment often arises when employees are rewarded with a leadership role because of their past performance as individual contributors. Under these circumstances, leadership is more of a symbolic title or recognition for past efforts, rather than an actual resource for the team or organization.

More precisely, traits such as confidence, narcissism, psychopathy, and charisma advance individuals’ careers without improving the success of the groups they lead. Clearly, we would be better off if we sifted out individuals with such traits, as opposed to rewarding them. The success of teams and organizations is more important than an individual’s personal success, especially when individual victory harms the rest of the group.