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.

Most notably, in a review of forty-five studies on leadership and gender, Alice Eagly, a professor at Northwestern University, and her colleagues found that women were more able to drive positive change in their teams and organizations than men were, not least because of women’s more effective leadership strategies.

Finally, good leadership requires psychological capital, that is, how individuals will lead and whether they will make use of their capabilities.

Summing up, if someone has the right intellectual capital, social capital, and psychological capital, they will have more potential to be a good leader. But it’s not guaranteed.

Intelligence tests are also worse predictors of leadership than employee performance is, partly because there is less variability in intelligence scores at higher levels on the organizational ladder.