Six types of leaders you should never choose

Selecting a leader is complicated. It is not enough to have the professionalism to assess knowledge and technical skills; one must have acquired the ability to frame the person's overall depth. In addition, their personality must emerge from the assessment, not just "what they can do."

You can train a talented young person to acquire the content needed for a specific job. Still, you will never be able to transfer to them those qualities developed through an inner journey of centring oneself against laboriously identified values and principles. Therefore, in this article, I do not want to offer you a list of the characteristics of the "good leader" but list the human and leadership types to look out for when evaluating and selecting a leader.

The leader who loses, always

Facts, not words (put-up or shut-up). Nothing smacks of poor leadership like a lack of performance. No one is perfect, but leaders who consistently fail must have problems. While it is true that failures help one grow, a history of continuous failure indicates a pathological inability to learn from mistakes. Here's a platitude for you: those who have consistently experienced success in leadership roles are much more likely to repeat themselves. While intelligent companies recognise potential, they also reward and seek performance. So cultivate talent, but ensure successful leaders.

The "know-it-all" leader

There is a phrase that has become widespread over the past ten years among mediocre leaders; here it is: "Tell me something I don't know." It is an insulting expression for the recipient and disqualifying for the person who utters it. Nevertheless, the best leaders are acutely aware of what they do not know. They listen patiently to the people they work with, even if they express concepts that do not revolutionise corporate thinking.

A leader does not need to be (or feel like) the most intelligent person in the room but constantly desires to learn from others. One of the characteristics of great leaders is their insatiable curiosity. If a leader is not extremely curious about every aspect of their organisation, believe me when I tell you that enormous problems are on the horizon.

The pathological egocentric leader

The self-centred leader always feels he is at the centre of events. He does not conceive of his role as one of service; on the contrary, he expects everything and everyone to serve his role. So, naturally, he relegates all his collaborators to marginal roles and does not share the information he needs to cultivate his sense of power and (assumed) indispensability.

An overabundance of ego, pride and arrogance alienates the loyalty and esteem of one's co-workers; which, translated, means that one is no longer their leader. Therefore, one is nothing.

A leader who cannot communicate

If his collaborators understand a leader, he knows how to communicate. And a leader with poor communication skills is, indeed, short-lived in his position.

Great leaders can communicate anything to anyone. They are active listeners, fluid thinkers, and can handle any conversation, skillfully modulating tone and tenor.

A leader who does not invest in their team

Leaders need to be fully committed to supporting those they lead to succeed.

The best leaders support their team, integrate themselves into the group they lead, and offer themselves as mentors and coaches to their people. Conversely, a leader who does not invest their energy in growing their team is a mediocre leader who incentivises the mediocrity of those who work with them.

The leader who wants to win alone

True leaders take responsibility for mistakes and give credit for successes to their team, partly because they know (or should know) that they are measured on the performance of the people working with them and not on their performance.

A leader who falls into this misunderstanding needs to be corrected.

It must be kept in mind that the choice of a leader does not only impact short-term business results but, by conditioning the corporate culture, has direct repercussions on medium- to long-term results; even after the leader on duty has left the company they helped to grow, or that - on the contrary - they helped to sink.