Even when leaders show strong potential regarding their intellectual capital, their social capital is key. Social capital concerns the network and connections that leaders have at their disposal. As David Ogilvy, the wizard advertising tycoon who inspired the Mad Men character of Don Draper used to say, “Contacts mean contracts.” Who you know determines not just how you lead, but also whether you lead at all, wherever you operate.

Since leadership is, at its core, a process of influence, those who form broader and richer relationships with others will undoubtedly be in a better position to influence. In fact, research suggests that one of the best single indicators of a leader’s influence—not just in business but also in politics and the military—is how central the person is in the organization’s network.

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.

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.

... if organizations want leaders to drive change, they would be well advised to hire moderate misfits rather than candidates who are a perfect fit for the current culture. A carbon copy of the rest of the team could perpetuate rather than disrupt the status quo. At the same time, hiring people who are radically different will rarely generate the desired change. More likely, these leaders would end up disrupting only themselves.