Written by Cheryl Flink, Ph.D., Chris Smith, Ph.D., and Sarah Coley, Ph.D.
Run a search on “executive presence” and you will see hundreds of articles and opinion pieces in the popular press explaining what the term means and how to acquire it. Look more closely and you’ll find nearly as many definitions of executive presence as there are articles—and none of them agree.
Indeed, the concept of executive presence lacks a clear definition. Even so, the term “executive presence” has seduced many of us into believing it’s a tangible leadership concept. Terms like “gravitas,”“je ne sais quoi,” and the “it factor,” seem to imply there’s some mystical quality we can acquire with the right kind of development. Recruiters are asked to identify it in possible candidates, leaders are expected to have executive presence to advance their careers, and executive coaches are asked to help coachees develop it. Our perceptions of whether a leader has executive presence or not can have enormous consequences. And yet, how can such weight be put on a concept that lacks clear definition—let alone a shared understanding of the behaviors that exemplify it?
Our Executive Presence position paper presents the evidence for and against the existence of executive presence as a tangible leadership construct. We explore models of executive presence, the research behind them (or lack thereof), the characteristics and behaviors associated with executive presence, and identify four traits that models have in common. We argue that many characteristics of “executive presence” are simply characteristics of models of good leadership that can be assessed in a typical 360—but note that some leadership characteristics do seem particularly representative of executive presence, like confidence. We end by reflecting on actions that can be taken to develop executive presence with this caveat: Is the concept of “executive presence” more about the leader—or about us?
Connect with a Truist Leadership Institute Business Advisor.
