In the world of leadership, the playing field is often uneven. Women and leaders of color frequently face higher barriers and must prove they’re not just qualified, but overqualified.
A 2023 McKinsey and Lean In study found that in business, women are often promoted based on proven experience, while men are promoted based on potential. The gap is even wider for women of color, with only five % holding C-suite roles, despite having comparable or superior qualifications to their peers.
Similarly in politics, leaders from underrepresented groups frequently encounter heightened scrutiny. Research from the Center for American Women and Politics shows that women and people of color in public office “still must work harder to prove they belong, and they struggle to be heard on all issues.”
The Leadership Opportunity Gap
Leadership in any context—whether in business or politics—requires a combination of experience, expertise, and competence. Yet the standards used to assess these qualities often differ drastically depending on who is being evaluated — and by whom.
For example, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., picked for Secretary of Health and Human Services, has been a vocal critic of vaccines, a stance widely challenged by public health experts. Popular conservative media personality Pete Hegseth, a military veteran, has been nominated as Defense secretary and could take over one of the nation’s largest employers. Linda McMahon, the former WWE executive, has been nominated for Secretary of Education–a department that Trump has announced he would dismantle.
These candidates’ lack of traditional credentials has drawn attention to the criteria used for leadership selections. This is where the idea of loyalty comes into focus—and it is not uncommon, even when the stakes are lower, as evidenced by state party machines, NFL front offices and local school boards.
The Impact of the Gap
Historical exclusion from leadership roles has created enduring systemic barriers. Leadership positions in the United States were historically dominated by white men, and remnants of this exclusivity persist today, with white men holding 62% of all elected offices despite being just 30% of the population. This pervasive disparity can take the form of unconscious bias, systemic barriers, and entrenched networks of privilege that elevate under-qualified candidates while marginalizing those from historically excluded groups.
These inconsistent standards for leadership appointments don’t just harm the people overlooked; it can weaken institutions, workplaces and public trust.
Appointing leaders without traditional qualifications–and perhaps passing over other candidates from under-represented groups who may be supremely qualified–can have significant implications for institutions and the public.
The qualifications of leaders selected for high-profile roles can send a message to aspiring leaders from marginalized groups: merit alone may not be enough. A study from Education and Employers revealed that the representation that children see in roles they might aspire to can have a large impact on their own career aspirations, with “boys overwhelmingly aspir[ing] to take on roles in traditionally male dominated sectors and professions.”
The solution lies in fostering a culture where qualifications, expertise, and performance—not identity or connections—determine leadership appointments. Achieving this requires transparent standards for leadership roles, systems designed to elevate the most qualified candidates and a reimagining of cultural narratives around who belongs in positions of power.