It is estimated that nearly half of all managers will fail to meet organizational objectives due to lacking skills and traits necessary for the role (Hogan et al., Reference Hogan, Hogan, Kaiser and Zedeck2010). Possible reasons for the proliferation of incompetent leaders could be related to poor selection decisions and a lack of guidance for addressing competence issues. Indeed, Ducheyne and De Fruyt (Reference Ducheyne and De Fruyt2026) assert that organizations should consider motivation and competence in leader selection processes, and the authors offer solutions rooted in development and training. We agree that it is imperative to select the people who both want and can lead others. However, given that incompetent leadership is so widespread, it is fruitful to take a few steps back and reflect on why people who lack the necessary motivation or competencies consider and accept leadership roles.
We bring attention to social tendencies of prioritizing leadership, in which society has elevated the importance of leaders over followers. This is evident as leaders are rewarded with better pay, respect, and stability compared to followers. Given that most people are worried about money, work, and the economy (American Psychological Association, 2025b), workers may strive to advance their career by attaining leadership positions—even if that does not align with their interests or skills. A potential answer to this issue lies in the need to uplift the role of being “just a follower.” Organizations can do this by promoting systems that emphasize followership principles,Footnote 1 using equity theory to support followers and their contributions, and offering mechanisms for advancement that do not push people into managerial roles.
The romanticization and prioritization of leadership
Leaders are often credited with making significant change, so it is no surprise that the early days of I-O psychology leaned into uncovering the traits that made people “great leaders” (Lord et al., Reference Lord, Day, Zaccaro, Avolio and Eagly2017). Scholars have since labeled the glorification of leaders as the “romance of leadership,” which suggests that people have elevated the role of leadership in a way that greatly exceeds the actual contributions of leaders (Meindl et al., Reference Meindl, Ehrlich and Dukerich1985). Indeed, decades of research show that people do over-attribute organizational success to the behaviors and characteristics of leaders without justly recognizing the impact of followers (Bligh et al., Reference Bligh, Kohles and Pillai2011). As such, the people we recognize as great leaders are deemed exceptional, admirable, and worthy of rewards for the accomplishments of their teams.
The romance of leadership has likely contributed to practices related to the distribution of resources within the workforce. For instance, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2025b), the median income of those in management occupations ($122,090) is 2.5x the median income earned by non-managerial workers ($49,500). Workers in management occupations tend to have greater access to paid family and sick leave, retirement benefits, and medical care as compared to other workers (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023, 2025a). We also have various terms in our language that highlight the (lowered) status of followers. Although some labels may acknowledge their hard work (worker bee), other labels reflect the perception of followers’ lower rank and status (subordinate, mindless drone, and cog in the machine). This messaging, along with differences in benefits and recognition, relates to the general idea that being a leader (not a follower) is superior, powerful, and worthy.
Who wouldn’t want to be valued and recognized as great by one’s society, organization, and close network? It is estimated that about a third of workers report aspirations to attain managerial positions (LinkedIn Market Research, 2025). Yet, people in management occupations make up only 12% of the workforce (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026b). This indicates that there are more people striving for these roles than there are roles available. As organizations try to remain competitive, they also commonly position themselves as “leaders” in their area—as if leadership is equated with “the best” or a status above others. Further, the market for leadership development and coaching is currently valued at approximately $106 billion US dollars, and it is projected to nearly double in value in the next decade (Coherent Market Insights, 2025). Clearly, both individuals and organizations have an endless appetite to be leaders.
Proliferation of incompetent leadership
We argue that these societal beliefs regarding leadership give rise to the proliferation of incompetent leadership in two major ways. First, they have led to inefficient promotion norms. This is seen through the Peter Principle, which explains that organizations incorrectly assume that high-performing workers will make good managers (Peter & Hull, Reference Peter and Hull1969). This error occurs because the competencies required in non-leadership roles do not often translate into having the competencies necessary for leading others (Peter & Hull, Reference Peter and Hull1969). Indeed, research supports this principle. For example, top sales performers are significantly more likely to be promoted to management positions, which subsequently reduces the sales performance of the teams that these newly appointed managers oversee (Benson et al., Reference Benson, Li and Shue2019). Essentially, it is common for competent employees to be pushed into leadership roles that turn them incompetent. These promotion practices likely endure because people readily accept the belief that high inputs (e.g., performance) should be rewarded with high outputs (e.g., promotion and pay), and leadership-based promotion is typically the main form of career advancement in many occupations.
Second, it is important to position societal leadership beliefs within the current economic context to understand why people are drawn to leadership positions. Workers in the last half-century have dealt with rising inflation rates, increased costs of living, stagnated wages, and job insecurity (American Psychological Association, 2025a; Mishel et al., Reference Mishel, Gould and Bivens2015; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026a). Social scientists find that economic inequality is worsening, such that the gap between the richest and poorest individuals is widening (Chancel et al., Reference Chancel, Gómez-Carrera, Moshrif and Piketty2026). Due to a lack of resources and opportunities, it is also very difficult for individuals to improve their social class (Connor & Storper, Reference Connor and Storper2020). Thus, it comes as no surprise that employees rank pay as one of the most important aspects of their job (Randstad, 2024), and leadership may pose a potential avenue to procure economic stability and ensure one’s survival in this economy.
It is a problem when a primary way of achieving greater resources and stability lies in obtaining leadership roles. It may not be easy for someone to turn down the prospect of a leadership role—even if they do not have a desire or the skills needed to lead. In cases of internal promotion, in which organizations recognize top talent as candidates to fill supervising roles, it may be embarrassing for a high-performing individual to admit to their organization that they do not want a leadership role. Turning down a “desirable” role can pose negative downstream effects that threaten one’s livelihood (via risking one’s relationship with their leader, future bonuses, and career progression), as they may tarnish their reputation at the organization. So, despite a lack of fit, people may feel compelled to accept the leadership position.
Practical recommendations
It is important for organizations to reward the immense value of both leaders and followers. We offer three recommendations centered on making followers feel valued, supported, and secure, such that they do not feel compelled to take on leadership roles if there is a lack of fit. First, organizations can use followership theory to guide their goals, values, and culture. Specifically, followership theory highlights that followers play a central role in carrying out organizational goals with leaders (Uhl-Bien et al., Reference Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe and Carsten2014). Followership principles may influence organizations to adopt a culture in which all members of the organization are recognized and valued for their contributions. It may be important to consider the unintended consequences of emphasizing the roles of both leaders and followers, such that fewer people may strive for leadership roles. However, this may not necessarily be a negative consequence if employees are satisfied and the organization is reaching its goals.
Second, organizations can ensure that followers’ outputs (e.g., pay, benefits, and rewards) are better calibrated to their inputs. Following equity and justice theory (see Colquitt et al., Reference Colquitt, Greenberg, Zapata-Phelan, Greenberg and Colquitt2005), aligning these inputs and outputs can help employees feel more satisfied and influence them to stay within the organization. A crucial note here is to ensure that organizations are not over-attributing organizational outcomes to individual leaders, especially in a way that discounts followers’ inputs.
Third, it will be important for organizations to consider forms of career advancement that do not push people into leadership roles. Many individuals desire growth, influence, and development, but it may not be in the form of obtaining leadership roles. Thus, there should be an upward and/or lateral progression in responsibility and skill growth for followers. Indeed, it is becoming more common for organizations (primarily in science, technology, healthcare, and engineering industries) to support these mechanisms—often called “dual career paths” (Heine, Reference Heine2025). Specifically, these paths allow employees to obtain advancement opportunities without the requirement of managing others.
Conclusion
Incompetent leaders—whether because they lack the motivation and/or competencies to effectively lead—can seriously derail an organization from meeting its goals. As organizational scholars, it may be prudent to reflect on the societal attitudes and structures that encourage people to be leaders. The idealization of leadership is embedded in our society, in which this message is reflected in our language and workforce hierarchies. People may feel pressured to take on leadership roles to prevent risking future pay, relationships, and career progression. We argue that this system may attract lackluster leaders who attain positions of power as a means of survival and social norms. By bringing attention to the various ways that society ascribes value to leadership, we hope this encourages a push toward better supporting followers.
Open access
