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.

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

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.

The group members knew their leader’s reputation and could accurately judge other members’ talent and potential for leadership. In addition, these groups were extremely democratic and tended to elect leaders by consensus. As we would expect, this approach led to a high standard of leadership competence, with most chiefs leading through example, reason, and peaceful persuasion. Moreover, these small hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian, with minimal power differences between men and women and many key duties shared between the sexes.

But even more critically, we must put in place much bigger obstacles for the disproportionate glut of incompetent men who are so adept at becoming leaders, to everyone’s peril.