A lively Sylvans debate took on the motion “our society values the wrong traits in leaders.” Exploring leadership traits across politics, business, sport and community life, the discussion weighed charisma against competence, performance against prudence and systems against individuals.
Opening case for the motion
The proposing speaker argued that we are living through a leadership crisis shaped by a confusion between confidence and competence. They said our culture prizes the wrong leadership traits. They described leadership today as overly performative – rewarding showmanship, bombast and swagger – especially in politics, where social media amplifies the loudest voices rather than the wisest. The result, they contended, is a bias toward overconfident and narcissistic leaders who under perform when judgement matters.
They highlighted gendered double standards: women are often assessed on demonstrated competence and results, while men are more often advanced on potential and presence. Despite evidence that companies with more female leaders tend to perform better, women face higher hurdles and scrutiny. During crises such as COVID-19, leaders who showed empathy were criticised, while arrogance in others was excused despite weaker outcomes.
Their core message: society should value doing over talking; humility, emotional intelligence and integrity over swagger. The lack of diversity and intellectual humility in leadership risks alienating voters – especially younger people – and weakening trust. They urged a shift toward evidence-based decision-making and away from performance politics dominated by a narrow, privileged class.
Opening case against the leadership traits motion
The opposing speaker broadened the lens beyond politics. Leadership, they argued, is everywhere: parents, teachers, coaches and community organisers shape us daily. Different contexts call for different leadership styles. They shared contrasting examples of coaching styles – structured and inspiring in one case, nurturing and supportive in another – both effective for their teams. They contended that effective leadership traits vary by context and that society often recognises this diversity in practice.
Further, they stressed that political leadership is uniquely difficult to judge in advance because crises reveal character. Some leaders rise due to circumstances; others falter. A healthy society needs a portfolio of leadership types: risk-takers and protectors, visionary extroverts and cautious pragmatists. While democracy is messy, they argued that society generally values the right mix – vision, communication and competence – even if outcomes are imperfect.
Audience speeches from the floor: where leadership traits help or harm
Contributors offered a wide range of perspectives:
Communication and vision are vital. One speaker argued that leaders with global reach must excel at communication and setting direction. Leadership is about mobilising others’ competence; charisma can help unlock a team’s best work.
Power-seeking vs. foresight. Another speaker drew on philosophy and corporate experience to suggest those who crave power are not always the best leaders. They emphasised strategic foresight – such as spotting major shifts like offshoring – as a core leadership trait often overshadowed by internal politicking.
Values and accountability. Several contributors argued that current politics often lacks public-minded values, with corruption and lying going unpunished, indicating society sometimes rewards the wrong traits. Others countered that widespread distrust of politicians suggests society does not, in fact, value those traits – at least not consciously – and that preferences vary by context (workplaces, communities, teams).
Systems shape selection. One speaker argued the problem often lies with selection systems rather than with leaders themselves – citing things like limited candidate pools in party politics and suggesting reforms such as citizens’ assemblies. Leadership traits like inspiration, risk-taking, coalition-building and delegation are necessary, but better systems would surface leaders who combine these with integrity.
Floor speeches continued
Politics vs. business and sport. Some argued that political leadership is the exception, not the rule. In business and sport, society often rewards effective leadership traits such as competence, vision and execution. The incentives and pay structures differ significantly between politics and business, potentially explaining gaps in talent attraction.
Integrity under pressure. An online contributor pointed to deception in political discourse and the pressure of time-sensitive crises (e.g., COVID) that exposed leaders’ weaknesses. They emphasised integrity, honesty, self-awareness and evidence-based decision-making as traits the public recognises and values – even if those traits are hard to evaluate in real time.
Performance vs. prudence. Charismatic performers who dominate media cycles can win power but struggle to govern, whereas real leadership demands humility, openness to being wrong and collaboration.
Context and consequences. Others noted that context matters: bombastic leaders can fail in some settings and succeed in others. In business, society’s tilt toward growth can tolerate exploitative practices, revealing a values problem. They called for integrity, accountability and responsibility at the core of leadership.
Subjectivity and time. One speaker warned that leadership judgements are subjective and change over time; societies choose their leaders – sometimes for the worse – and values evolve. Another emphasised the need for honesty and life experience, with a caution that high campaign costs can skew political leadership toward oligarchy.
Expectations vs. execution. A recurring theme: society does value communication, vision and decisiveness, but breakdowns occur when baseline competence is missing. Some framed this not as a failure of values, but a failure of execution and vetting.
More floor speeches
Truth and media. Multiple speakers argued that media sensationalism, information overload and misaligned incentives in capitalism obscure truth, making it hard for society to identify and reward the right leadership qualities.
Representation and sovereignty. One contributor focused on leaders representing people’s interests, the complexity of political choices like Brexit and the role of media in shaping perceptions. Others returned to accountability: voters must take responsibility for their choices and demand follow-through.
Track record matters. A late intervention reviewed recent UK prime ministers and argued that despite surface charisma, key failures on wars, finance and Brexit suggest society repeatedly elevates the wrong traits.
Closing arguments on leadership traits
The opposing side urged the room to look beyond political theatre. Everyday leadership – in families, classrooms, clubs and communities – works in quieter, less polarised ways. Social media distorts perceptions of leadership, and even historic leaders would struggle in today’s environment. They called for less cynicism and greater appreciation of diverse styles, learning from failure rather than dismissing leadership outright.
The proposing side called for the same rigor in selecting leaders that organisations use to hire for critical roles. They challenged myths about introversion, noting that introverts can be excellent communicators and leaders. They pointed to the low share of women among FTSE 100 CEOs as a signal that society still values the wrong traits. Their bottom line: leadership should rest on competence, integrity, communication and the ability to unite – rather than on performance and hype.
Outcome of the final vote
in the final vote, the motion “our society values the wrong traits in leaders” carried narrowly.
Why leadership traits matter
Whether in boardrooms, classrooms or ballot boxes, the traits we reward shape the futures we get. If we overvalue performance and underweight prudence, we should not be surprised by short-termism and broken trust. If we reward competence, humility and integrity alongside clear communication and vision, we build institutions—and communities – that can weather crises and compound progress. In short, our choices about leadership traits today influence the leaders we get tomorrow.
Leadership is not one size fits all. But the traits we celebrate are signals to the next generation about what leadership should be. Choosing wisely is itself an act of leadership.
Please see this detailed summary of the debate for more information.
For earlier Sylvan debates, click here.
For more information about how our meetings run, see meeting info.