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.

Think about this: we have inspirational stories—both real and imaginary—of people who went from extreme poverty to mega wealth, from alarming sickness to obsessive health freaks, and from ignorance to wisdom. However, we don’t even bother making up stories of bosses who went from terrible to amazing. If we did, they would probably be classified as science fiction. In contrast, and as earlier chapters have demonstrated, there is no shortage of real-life examples for leaders who were great until they deteriorated. The pathway from good to bad seems much easier than the one going from bad to good.

Going from leadership incompetence to leadership competence is not easy, but compelling evidence attests to the efficacy of well-designed, albeit rare, leadership development programs. So, some programs do work. But their effectiveness is built on making leaders aware of their limitations, persuading them to replace their toxic habits with more effective ones, and linking those habits to critical business performance metrics. There are ways of doing it right, and helping leaders improve can make organizations more effective.

Fundamentally, coaching is not pure science. It is partly an art, which explains the huge variability in effectiveness between different coaches. The success of coaching will largely depend on the talent and skill of the coach, and individual coaches’ characteristics and behaviors have been found to matter more than does the coaching method.

Putting more women in leadership roles does not necessarily improve the quality of leadership, whereas putting more talented leaders into leadership roles will increase the representation of women.