The leadership confidence versus competence dilemma

By Carolyn Dewar, McKinsey & Company senior partner and co-author of The New York Times bestseller, CEO Excellence: The Six Mindsets That Distinguish the Best Leaders from the Rest.

It’s?comp season—the time of year when employees scramble to summarize their impact, position themselves for promotions, and make the case for their next big move. But look closely and an uncomfortable truth hides within that competitive arena: many organizations are unwittingly rewarding confidence over competence, and it’s costing them their best talent. ?

The confidence trap

A recent?Stanford Graduate School of Business study?by Francis Flynn, a professor of organizational behavior, and researchers Emily S. Reit and Shilaan Alzahawi, highlights a fundamental flaw in how companies select leaders. Organizations’ processes often favor individuals who are naturally more self-promoting and risk-seeking—potentially at the expense of equally or more competent colleagues who are less inclined to push themselves forward. In other words, the selection process favors those who speak up rather than those who are genuinely up to the task. The sobering reality is that this self-nomination model “systematically excludes individuals who, despite having strong leadership potential, are less confident, less likely to self-promote, and less likely to seek out risks and competition,” Alzahawi explains.

?Are we promoting the best leaders or simply the most visible ones?

Performance management: The bias few want to admit

The issue goes beyond leadership selection—it’s also baked into how we evaluate performance. Whether it’s self-rated assessments or the annual exercise of writing up one’s achievements, organizations rely heavily on individuals to articulate their value. And let’s face it, some people are simply better at self-promotion than others.

?Consider this common scenario: Two employees contribute equally to a high-profile project. One submits a self-review that paints them as the driving force behind its success, a strategic mastermind who “led” the effort. The other—despite making identical contributions—frames their role more modestly, focusing on teamwork and shared outcomes. On paper, the difference is stark. In reality, they delivered the same impact. Yet, when it comes to recognition and advancement, perception trumps reality.

True leadership isn’t about who talks the loudest; it’s about who delivers results, builds trust, and creates lasting impact.

I’ve even considered running a less confident employee’s self-review through ChatGPT—asking it to rewrite their accomplishments in the voice of an overconfident person. The results? Eye-opening. If AI can instantly make someone’s achievements seem more impressive just by tweaking the tone, what does that say about how we measure success?

Fact-checking: The antidote to the confidence bias

If organizations want to get serious about fair and effective talent management, they need to demand?evidence—not just eloquence. Evaluations should focus on tangible outcomes, hard metrics, and verifiable impact. Did they hit or exceed key objectives? What measurable value did they create? Who else can validate their contributions? Grounding performance reviews in data rather than self-reported narratives is a simple but powerful way to shift the focus from personality to performance.

Time to rethink selection and evaluation

The confidence bias isn’t just an HR issue; it’s a leadership pipeline issue. It influences who gets promoted, who gets access to opportunities, and ultimately, who shapes an organization’s future. Leaders and HR teams should be asking themselves the following questions:

For individual leaders:

• Do you effectively showcase your impact without falling into the trap of overstatement or understatement?
• Do you advocate for high-performing peers who may not self-promote?
• Do you value humility and quiet competence in those around you?

?For organizations:

• Do we unintentionally reward visibility over value?
• Do our performance processes favor those who “speak well” rather than those who “perform well”?
• Do we use objective measures to recognize and advance talent, or are we still relying on subjective narratives?

It’s time to prioritize substance over style

As comp season rolls on, companies need to ask themselves whether their systems promote the right people or just the ones who know how to work the system.

True leadership isn’t about who talks the loudest; it’s about who delivers results, builds trust, and creates lasting impact. Competence, not charisma, should be the foundation of leadership selection.

So, let’s ask the hard question:?Are we getting it right? Or are we letting style win over substance?

Carolyn Dewar is a senior partner based in McKinsey’s Bay Area office and the co-author of The New York Times bestseller, CEO Excellence: The Six Mindsets That Distinguish the Best Leaders from the Rest.?