Two leaders step into the same position with similar experience. One accelerates quickly. The other stalls. What looks like a difference in competence is often a difference in conditions.
This pattern repeats across industries. Leadership effectiveness depends less on individual strength and more on how that strength interacts with the realities of the organisation. And those realities are rarely visible in the job description.
This is not new. Research on person–situation fit and behavioural expression has shown for decades that leaders behave differently depending on the clarity, pressure, pace and expectations around them. Even highly competent leaders perform variably across different contexts. Understanding this interaction is often what separates a successful hire from an expensive misalignment.
A short case: One role, two outcomes
A Norwegian industrial company hired a new operations director. The first leader came from a similar role, was competent and well regarded. Twelve months later, the company replaced him with someone who looked almost identical on paper.
Both were strong. Their outcomes were not.
Leader A
- focused on structure, process and optimisation
- relied on clear decision authority and formal alignment
- excelled in environments with predictable conditions
This approach made sense in his previous organisation.
In the new one, it created friction. The company was still adjusting its commercial direction, ownership had evolving expectations, and key roles had blurred after a period of rapid growth. Decisions required interpretation rather than procedure. Leader A struggled to adapt and became increasingly disconnected from the pace and expectations around him.
Leader B
- navigated ambiguity with more ease
- built early relationships to understand hidden dynamics
- aligned quickly with the owners on priorities
- made progress despite incomplete information
The job was the same, but the conditions were not. Leader B fit the real situation. Leader A fit the written description. Both leaders were competent. Only one was compatible with the environment.
Why this happens: The science behind divergent outcomes
Studies on situational strength show that leaders behave more consistently in clear and structured environments when clarity, consistency, constraints and consequences are high. In weaker situations, where expectations are ambiguous and priorities shift, individual differences in judgement and decision style become much more visible.
This is exactly where strong leaders diverge.
- One interprets ambiguity as noise, the other interprets it as context
- One waits for clarity, the other creates clarity
- One relies on process, the other relies on relationships
The difference is not capability. It is compatibility.
Five reasons strong leaders fail in the same role
- Strategy changes the behavioural requirements: A shift in direction often demands a different type of leadership than the one that worked in the past.
- The real job is not the written job description: Cultural norms, ownership expectations and informal influencers shape success far more than the task list.
- Ownership philosophy defines what good leadership looks like: In privately held and PE-backed companies, alignment with the owner’s way of working is essential.
- Leaders differ in how they respond to organisational noise: Ambiguity, unclear interfaces and shifting demands amplify behavioural differences, and leaders who can treat ambiguity as information rather than irritation enable higher learning and performance in their teams.
- Decision patterns matter more than background: Two similar profiles can interpret the same situation in fundamentally different ways.
The hidden risk in many recruitment processes
Most failed leadership hires are not caused by weak candidates. They are caused by weak understanding of the conditions the leader is stepping into.
On paper, two leaders can look identical. In practice, one is suited to the environment and the other is not. This is the real cost of treating strong candidates as interchangeable.
A better question to ask
Instead of asking "Who is the best leader?", ask "What leadership does our situation actually demand right now, and who is most likely to succeed under these conditions?".
This shifts the focus from evaluating people in isolation to understanding the interaction between leader and context. It is also where most organisations underestimate risk.
Leaders succeed not because they are universally strong, but because they are strong in the conditions they are asked to navigate.
Closing reflection
The same role can reward one leader and undermine another. This is not inconsistency. It is context.
Organisations that hire well do not look only at competence. They look at alignment between:
- leadership behaviour
- organisational reality
- ownership expectations
- strategic direction
Competence is easy to assess. Conditions are not. That’s where the real work is.
References
- Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R., "A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences" (2010)
- Götz, M., Donnellan, M. B., & Roche, M. J., "Understanding the relationship between situational strength and personality" (2020)
- Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H., "A meta-analysis of relations between person–organization fit and work attitudes" (2003)