We've all heard the phrase "executive presence." It's that elusive quality leaders are supposed to have—the ability to command a room, exude unwavering confidence, and deliver messages with bullet-point precision. But when you scratch beneath the surface, is "executive presence" really about leadership, or is it just another vague corporate expectation steeped in bias? And, does it exclude the very qualities that make leaders effective in the first place?
We recently covered this topic in our podcast and are once again following up with a written post with some of our key takeaways.
The Flaws in Traditional Executive Presence aka The Unspoken Rules of Presence
The issue with conventional “executive presence” is that it prioritizes optics over substance. It rewards a performative style of leadership rather than the kind that fosters trust, teamwork, and long-term impact.
For many, "executive presence" often means navigating a set of unwritten rules, especially for women and leaders from underrepresented groups (read: non-white, non-male). Consider this: A male CEO might walk into a meeting wearing jeans and a sweater, while a woman in the same role instinctively knows she needs to wear a suit to be taken seriously. It's not fair—but it is reality. Research from Harvard Business Review highlights this double bind for women: women are often expected to balance authority with warmth, while men are judged primarily on competence.
And it's not just about attire. Communication styles get scrutinized too. Leaders who naturally tell stories, who like to explain the "why" behind a decision, are often told to "get to the point." But is brevity really leadership, or just a preference shaped by traditional power dynamics? Some leaders naturally prefer storytelling and context-setting, yet they receive feedback to “get to the point” and while they are asked to adapt their styles, less often are more concise leaders and listeners asked to adapt their styles in the opposite direction.
Others are told they must project decisiveness at all times, even if a more collaborative approach would lead to better outcomes. MIT Sloan Management Review suggests that while decisiveness is often equated with strong leadership, the most effective leaders are those who can adapt their style to the needs of the situation.
Rethinking Presence: What Really Makes a Great Leader?
When we think about the leaders who inspire us most—the ones we’d follow to another company—they don’t fit the traditional mold of "executive presence." They aren’t always the loudest in the room, the most decisive, or the ones who look like a leadership stereotype; some of the most influential leaders operate behind the scenes, earning respect through quiet persistence rather than commanding speeches. These are leaders who:
Build trust through consistency and integrity.
Do the hard, unseen work of bringing teams together.
Lead with authenticity, rather than performative authority.
Inspire followership not through charisma, but through credibility and care.
Consider the research in The Captain Class by Sam Walker, which examined the most successful sports teams in history. The key players who drove these teams to greatness were not the loudest or most charismatic. Instead, they were steady, dogged, and often introverted leaders who led by example. This aligns with what we see in organizations: the best leaders are not necessarily those with the loudest voices, but those who bring people together, stay resilient, and make thoughtful decisions.
The Trade-Offs: Adaptation vs. Authenticity
Some adjustments DO make us more effective. For example, learning to be more concise in executive meetings can be a strategic choice rather than a compromise of values. But what about the feedback that asks us to strip away core aspects of who we are? One leader shared that she was told to stop thanking people for their contributions in meetings—because it slowed things down. For her, that wasn’t just a habit; it was a leadership value. She chose to keep doing it.
So, where's the line? When does adapting to "executive presence" actually make you a better leader, and when does it just make you less you?
The Takeaways: What Should You Do With This?
Instead of trying to "fix" your executive presence, ask yourself these questions:
What kind of presence do I actually want to have and what kind of impact do I want to have on others? Forget the corporate jargon—how do you want people to experience you as a leader?
Which leadership "rules" actually make me better, and which just make me conform? Adapt where it serves you, but don’t shrink yourself for the sake of an outdated model.
What feedback am I willing to accept, and what am I willing to push back on? Some changes help you grow; others diminish your impact. Know the difference.
Who are the leaders I admire, and what makes them effective? Chances are, they’re not just checking the boxes of "executive presence." They’re leading in ways that feel natural and human.
Are you reinforcing unhelpful norms? If you’re in a position of influence, consider whether you’re upholding outdated leadership models or creating space for a broader range of styles to thrive.
Moving Beyond the Executive Presence Myth
It’s time to move past rigid definitions of executive presence and toward a broader, more human-centered model of leadership. Rather than focusing on optics, let’s reward leaders who foster connection, demonstrate resilience, and inspire others—not just those who fit a traditional mold.
Maybe "executive presence" isn’t the right phrase at all. Maybe the real question is: What kind of leader do you want to be? And how can you show up in a way that’s both effective and true to who you are?
We think that’s a conversation worth having. For more, check out our conversation on The Messy Truth Podcast.