The Leadership Paradox

Why We Keep Confusing Managers with Leaders

In the high-stakes world of startups, particularly in middle-income countries where productivity gains can reshape entire economies, choosing the right leader isn't just important—it's existential. Yet we consistently struggle with a fundamental question that reveals our collective blind spot: what separates a true leader from someone who simply manages well?

Suzy Welch, the sharp-tongued former Senior Editor of Harvard Business Review, once dismissed this eternal debate with characteristic bluntness: a manager, she declared, is merely a "B+ leader." It's both amusing and cutting, but like many witty observations, it sidesteps the deeper complexity we're grappling with.

The cruel irony is that leadership often becomes crystal clear only in hindsight. Consider the transformative figures who emerged from seemingly ordinary circumstances: Nelson Mandela's ability to unite a fractured South Africa, José "Pepe" Mujica's authentic connection with Uruguay's people, or Lula's capacity to inspire across Brazil's vast social divides. These leaders possessed something indefinable that even transcended borders and touched millions. Their leadership wasn't manufactured in boardrooms or gleaned from management textbooks—it was forged through vision, authenticity, and an almost magnetic ability to embody hope.

The business world presents a more treacherous landscape. Unlike political leaders who often emerge through public scrutiny and democratic processes, corporate leadership decisions typically happen behind closed doors, with limited information about candidates' true capabilities. We're essentially making high-stakes bets on people's potential to inspire and transform, often based on résumés that tell us more about their managerial competence than their leadership fire.

This information deficit creates a dangerous cycle. We promote skilled managers into leadership roles, then wonder why organizations feel more like well-oiled machines than movements. The current selection process for Cambridge University's Chancellor illuminates this challenge perfectly—how do you evaluate leadership potential when the stakes are institutional legacy and the candidates' true mettle remains largely untested?

Perhaps the most insidious part of this puzzle lies not just in identifying leaders, but in who gets to make these critical decisions. Too often, leadership selection falls to existing managers, i.e. Suzy’s B+ leaders—individuals whose methodical, buttoned-up worldview may inherently favor candidates who mirror their own approach. It's like asking rear-mirror looking accountants to choose poets: they might pick technically proficient wordsmiths, but miss the ones capable of moving souls.

The urgency of this challenge intensifies in developing economies, where the right leadership choice can accelerate progress by decades, while the wrong one can entrench stagnation. These contexts demand leaders who can navigate not just spreadsheets and strategic plans, but the complex social and economic realities that drive productivity growth across entire populations.

The solution isn't to dismiss good management—organizations need both operational excellence and inspirational leadership. Rather, we need to fundamentally rethink how we identify and evaluate leadership potential, moving beyond traditional metrics toward a more nuanced understanding of what it means to truly lead in an age of unprecedented change.

My hunch? People who have overcome personal adversities are more likely to become more inspiring leaders.

---

Of late I have frequently published my ongoing research on the Sun as driver of human collective movements. Here I return to the overarching purpose of this newsletter, to inspire leadership, but mind you, the Sun is always present :)