When Style Gets Promoted Over Substance

Can height shape how we see leadership? Psychologists call it the “height premium” or the “style advantage” —and it’s more than a quirk of perception. Research from the University of Florida found that each additional inch of height corresponds to an average $789 boost in annual earnings. Malcolm Gladwell also opined on this phenomenon in his book Blink: In the U.S. population, about 14.5% of all men are six feet or over. Among CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, that number is 58%.

We unconsciously equate height with authority, strength, even intelligence—a leftover bias from evolutionary psychology. Tallness signals dominance, and dominance gets confused with leadership. It’s not rational. But it’s real. And it shows up not just in paychecks, but in who we trust to take charge.

But height isn’t the only signal that gets misread as strength. The way someone speaks—how often, how confidently, how loudly—can tilt perception too.

Take the Babble Effect. A recent study led by research scientist Neil G. MacLaren helped renew attention to a long-observed but underexamined pattern: people who speak more in group settings are more likely to be seen as leaders, regardless of what they say. MacLaren and a team of researchers found consistent evidence that people attribute leadership to those who ‘babbled’ or talked more frequently. The study also found that men received an additional vote on average just because of their gender.

I recently spoke with MacLaren to understand the context behind the study. His responses emphasized that this is still an emerging area of research but one with real implications for how organizations identify and grow leaders. In my own research, coaching and succession work, I’ve seen how performative behaviors like constant speaking often get rewarded—not because they’re valuable, but because they’re visible. That disconnect shows up across leadership selection, promotion processes and even team dynamics.

Performative Leadership Isn’t Always A Choice

There’s a common critique of performative leadership. But the truth is more complicated. Most leaders don’t begin that way. They become performative because they’ve learned what earns attention. What gets rewarded gets repeated. Speak more, get more. Be seen, move up.

Babble becomes audition. A way of signaling, “I belong here.” It isn’t always ego. Sometimes it’s survival.

A perception gap only deepens the problem. While 68% of board directors believe their succession plans are equitable and inclusive, just 38% of C-suite leaders and 33% of next-generation leaders agree, according to a Russell Reynolds study.

In the absence of clear merit signals, high-potential leaders often reach for the next best tool—visibility. Even if that means stepping into a version of themselves that feels unnatural. Not to impress, but to stay in the running.

And when polish is mistaken for readiness, when confidence is confused for competence, we begin to lose the plot. Noise gets misread as value. And the leadership pipeline fills with those who learned how to perform, not necessarily how to lead.

The Real Cost Of Mistaking Volume for Vision

In many organizations, presence still substitutes for performance. The first person to speak is seen as decisive. The most vocal shapes the discussion. The smoothest communicator becomes the natural pick for the next stretch role.

But that pattern carries a cost. Leaders with strategic patience are misread as passive. People who elevate others don’t always dominate the room. And those who think deeply often go unnoticed.

Gallup’s recent research on neurodivergent employees adds to the picture. Many bring rare strengths like ideation, strategic thinking and pattern recognition. But in systems that reward verbal fluency and fast thinking, they are often overlooked. We end up reinforcing a narrow definition of what leadership looks like—and miss out on the very people who see around edges.

Maclaren noted that the Babble Effect tends to show up most strongly in unstructured environments without formal hierarchies. That doesn’t mean it vanishes in more formal organizations—it may just look different. So far, there’s little research on how it plays out in succession or promotion decisions, but the potential impact is clear. As he put it, “There hasn’t been much research that’s tried to go beyond the babble observation.” That gap in evidence doesn’t make the pattern less real. It just means most organizations haven’t yet asked the right questions.

What we label as leadership often reflects what we see first, not what drives the best outcomes.

Three Shifts To Build Leadership Cultures That Listen

1. Replace Gut Feel With Real Evidence

Charisma isn’t a competency. Yet too often, it becomes the shortcut for advancement. Structured evaluation helps leadership teams assess potential based on contribution, not just presence.

Too often, leadership potential is assessed by gut feel, surface-level impressions, or informal 360s that rely on perception. Candidates who “appear confident,” “speak boldly,” or “stand out” may be favored, even if their actual impact is uneven or untested. That is not evaluation—it’s projection. And it’s one of the fastest ways to miss real capability.

This is where objective assessments matter. Tools that evaluate judgment, strengths, and problem solving—without being filtered through charisma—can change the conversation. These tools don’t eliminate bias, but they reduce the weight of first impressions. When used alongside structured observation, they create a fuller picture of leadership readiness.

We also need to recalibrate what counts as evidence. Instead of defaulting to polish or airtime, ask: Who made others better? Who clarified thinking? Who improved the outcome?

If thoughtful contributors are passed over for louder voices, we’re not just missing talent. We’re reinforcing a model of leadership that fails under real complexity.

In succession planning, track who gets nominated—and who never does. Bias doesn’t just shape final decisions. It influences who gets seen, supported, and stretched in the first place.

Leadership move: Insist on objective, validated measures of talent—tools that assess how people think, not just how they talk. Reimagine talent reviews as structured data conversations, not loose discussions based on perceived readiness. Ask, “Where is the evidence of contribution?” not just, “Who feels ready?”

2. Value A Broader Range Of Strengths And Abilities

Not everyone leads with volume. Some lead through clarity, systems thinking, or reflection. These are the leaders who stabilize progress long after the spotlight moves on.

I’ve coached high-potential leaders who consistently elevate team performance but rarely get noticed because they don’t fit the traditional mold. Gallup’s research on neurodivergence reinforces this. Many bring powerful cognitive strengths that remain invisible in cultures obsessed with ease of expression.

MacLaren noted that introverts are especially susceptible to being misread in these environments. Talkativeness is often equated with extroversion, and extroversion with leadership. He also raised a useful question: Do people speak more when the conversation plays to their strengths? That kind of nuance rarely shows up in performance reviews, but it should.

Leadership move: Rotate facilitation. Normalize written input. Create space for insight that doesn’t compete for airtime. Redesign team rituals so that introverted, deep-thinking contributors shape outcomes just as much as fluent speakers do.

3. Build Platforms For Overlooked Voices

Talent development isn’t just about giving feedback. It’s about creating access. Many leaders don’t self-promote—not because they lack ambition, but because the system asks them to perform a version of leadership that doesn’t reflect who they are.

As MacLaren pointed out, even raters are vulnerable to the Babble Effect. That’s why he recommends more holistic evaluations. Pair leaderless group exercises with structured assessments. Reduce the role of personality-driven impressions wherever possible.

Leadership visibility should not depend on who interrupts best or commands a room. It should reflect who delivers value and helps others succeed. If we don’t challenge the idea that influence equals volume, we’ll keep recycling the same traits in our talent pipelines.

Leadership move: Ask in your next one-on-one, “What part of your thinking does this organization need more of?” Then make that thinking visible. Influence starts by being seen for what matters.

Amplifying The Voices We Don’t Hear

Leadership today doesn’t suffer from a lack of ideas. It suffers from a lack of listening.

The best insight might not come from the first voice. The most thoughtful contribution may not be the smoothest. The next great leader may not match the voice you’ve been trained to follow.

Loud is easy to reward. But wisdom often speaks more quietly. And if leadership systems reward what’s visible over what’s valuable, we will keep cycling through the same kinds of risk, the same kinds of mistakes, and the same kinds of leaders.

What if the next big idea wasn’t in a polished pitch? What if it was scribbled in the margins by someone who wasn’t invited to the room?

What we choose to notice becomes what we scale. And what we overlook is often where the future quietly lives. Where substance matters more than style.