There are two ways to bring down a building. One is to attack it from the outside with heavy machinery until the structure gives way. The other is to weaken it internally so that it eventually implodes and collapses in on itself.
Leadership failure can follow a similar pattern. Leaders are understandably alert to external threats such as economic pressure, organisational politics, stakeholder demands and increasing complexity. Yet, in my experience as an Executive and Group Coach, many leaders do not struggle simply because of what is happening around them. They struggle because the internal foundation required to carry the growing weight of leadership has not developed at the same pace as their responsibilities.
This is the character–competence gap. A leader’s authority, influence and technical capability may grow rapidly, while their self-awareness, integrity, emotional maturity and ability to manage themselves under pressure develop more slowly. Eventually, the demands of the role can become greater than the strength of the internal foundation carrying them.
Leadership roles naturally develop competence. The work exposes leaders to complex decisions, difficult relationships and high-stakes conversations. Over time, they become more strategic, confident and organisationally astute. They learn how to influence stakeholders, navigate uncertainty and deliver results.
Organisations need this competence. The risk is that capability can develop through experience almost automatically, while character requires conscious and sustained attention. A more senior role may improve a leader’s ability to communicate, but it does not automatically make them more honest or receptive to challenge. Greater authority may improve their ability to get things done, but it does not necessarily make them more humble. Increased influence may strengthen confidence without deepening compassion, courage or wisdom.
I have coached highly capable leaders whose desire for excellence gradually became a need for control. In one situation, a leader’s technical standards and commitment to quality were considerable strengths. However, the leader felt compelled to review and approve nearly everything produced by the team. What had begun as a demonstration of competence was gradually limiting delegation, ownership and trust. The development opportunity was not primarily to become more capable. It was to become sufficiently self-aware and secure to release control, tolerate different approaches and allow others to grow.
In another coaching engagement, a senior leader was carrying responsibility for important work within a highly uncertain organisational transition. The leader was capable, conscientious and deeply committed to successful delivery. Yet the fear of overlooking a critical issue was creating self-doubt and an increasing sense of personal responsibility for matters that could not be fully controlled. The coaching work involved distinguishing healthy questioning from unproductive doubt, seeking appropriate peer challenge and accepting that mature leadership does not mean eliminating uncertainty. It means responding to uncertainty with sound judgement, humility and perspective.
These examples illustrate why competence is not enough. Competence is usually highly visible. Organisations can observe whether leaders meet targets, solve problems and communicate effectively. Character becomes visible more gradually, particularly when a leader is under pressure, challenged or required to accept responsibility.
Character is revealed in whether leaders tell the truth when the truth is inconvenient. It is reflected in how they treat people who hold less positional power, whether they can acknowledge mistakes and how they respond when their thinking is questioned. It is also reflected in whether their conduct remains aligned with the values they expect others to uphold.
Stephen M. R. Covey offers a useful way of understanding trust, describing it as confidence that rests on two dimensions: character and competence. Character includes a person’s integrity, intentions and consistency, while competence includes their capabilities, judgement and ability to deliver results.
Sustainable trust requires both. A leader may be sincere and well-intentioned, but if they repeatedly fail to make decisions, honour commitments or produce results, confidence will decline. Similarly, a leader may be highly capable, but if people question their motives, integrity or treatment of others, they may respect the person’s ability without trusting them.
In group-coaching conversations, I have invited leaders to rate the level of trust in their teams and to examine how their own behaviour either strengthens or weakens it. Leaders often recognise that low trust shows up in additional checking, repeated approvals, defensive emails, unnecessary escalation and reluctance to delegate. These behaviours may initially appear to be attempts to protect quality, but they frequently create more control, slower decisions and reduced accountability.
By contrast, high-trust teams are more willing to speak directly, challenge constructively and take responsibility. People are able to admit mistakes, ask for help and raise concerns before they become crises. Leaders do not need to supervise every detail because there is confidence in both the intentions and capabilities of those involved.
I have also worked with leadership teams whose members were individually experienced and technically strong, but who struggled to use their collective competence effectively. The challenge was not a lack of intelligence. It was insufficient trust, candour and accountability. Important decisions remained unresolved, commitments were not consistently followed through, and concerns were sometimes discussed outside the room rather than addressed directly with the relevant colleague.
In these situations, the team’s development cannot focus only on structures, processes and meeting efficiency. Members must also examine how they respond to disagreement, whether they keep commitments, how they repair relationships and whether they create the conditions for honest challenge. The quality of the team’s character becomes visible in the way it uses its competence.
Executive and Group Coaching should therefore do more than help leaders improve their performance. It should create space for them to examine how they exercise power, respond to pressure and affect the people around them. The question is not only, “How can I become more effective?” It is also, “Who am I becoming as I lead?”
Am I becoming more open or more defensive? More courageous or more controlling? More willing to listen, or simply more skilled at persuading others? More accountable, or more capable of explaining away my mistakes?
The answer is not for leaders to become less ambitious, capable or successful. Organisations need competent leaders who can navigate complexity and deliver results. The challenge is to ensure that character grows as intentionally as competence.
Skills may open the door to leadership, and results may expand a leader’s influence. Character determines whether that influence can be trusted and sustained. The strongest leaders are not simply those who become increasingly capable. They are those whose internal foundations deepen as their responsibilities grow.
Source: Stephen M. R. Covey, The Speed of Trust: The One Thing That Changes Everything (Free Press, 2006).
Written by Nkulu
