Why leadership reveals itself only when it is tested

--

Leadership is often inferred from roles, résumés, and results. Yet its true quality becomes visible only when circumstances remove predictability. This reflection explores why mentoring matters before that moment arrives.

Leadership is often described in terms of competence, capability, or experience. Yet many of us intuitively recognise that leadership is something more elusive—embedded, situational, and often invisible until it is tested. It is like culture, any number of do’s can be outdone by a few don’ts! If that is so, a natural question arises: how does one prepare for the moment that demands the best form of leadership to flow from within—before temporal pressures and circumstance intervene?

A quiet shift is underway across organisations. Young leaders with strong technical, digital, and analytical skills are rising rapidly to positions of influence. This is both necessary and welcome. In an age shaped by AI and speed, technical fluency at the top is no longer optional. Yet an unspoken assumption often accompanies this rise—that real-life and interpersonal dynamics will respond with similar predictability. That experience in the “right” marquee organisations should make leadership transferable in much the same way technical capability often is. Leadership, however, does not behave like an algorithm. Outcomes may disappoint for reasons that are neither immediately visible nor easily articulated, and these gaps often get interpreted, in hindsight, as leadership failure.

This acceleration introduces a different uncertainty. The unknown is not technology; it is leadership—particularly how it shows up when it matters most.

Most people possess leadership in some form. What varies is not its presence, but its deployment. Leadership often remains latent during stable periods and reveals itself under stress, ambiguity, or even success. Our epics capture this well. When Arjuna mentors Prince Uttara Kumara during the Virata war, the young prince is initially paralysed by fear. Yet later, in the great war, Uttara fights with notable courage and valour—qualities absent in that earlier moment. Leadership was always present; it required guidance, context, and readiness to find expression.

What often remains unseen in high-potential leaders is the ability to read people, hold tension, exercise restraint, and act decisively when no rulebook applies. These are commonly called “soft skills,” but the label is misleading. They are situational, cultural, and deeply personal, surfacing most clearly when the cost of learning in real time is high.

There is also a danger particular to our times: leadership lessons themselves have become commoditised. We recognise familiar tropes—the good leader speaks about failure, displays vulnerability, uses the right vocabulary. Over time, these signals risk becoming performative rather than reflective. Mentoring can serve as a quiet corrective, helping leaders avoid the trap of merely sounding evolved instead of actually becoming so.

Mentoring is not teaching. Hard technical capability is built through study and experience; mentoring operates in a different domain altogether. Owning a library does not make one wise, just as access to AI does not confer judgment.

At its core, the value of a mentor–mentee relationship lies in understanding the path and recognising pitfalls before one stumbles into them. Leadership strength is not defined by control over circumstances—though confident navigation is often an outcome—but by consistency of response: the ability to stay reflective, composed, and grounded, regardless of what unfolds.

A mentor, then, is closer to a navigation aid than a self-driving system. The leader still drives. Choices remain theirs. But orientation improves, blind spots are surfaced, and consequences become clearer—often accelerating growth while keeping leaders conscious of the terrain they are navigating.

Perhaps it is appropriate to leave this reflection unresolved.

How does one distinguish genuine leadership from hindsight attribution after success or survival? If mentoring is not teaching, how does it remain disciplined rather than drifting into comfortable reflection? Preparation for leadership sounds compelling—but preparation for what moments, exactly?

Where does one draw the line between guidance and dependency? How does mentoring strengthen autonomy rather than soften decisiveness?

These questions do not weaken the case for mentoring. They deepen it. They remind us that leadership is not a formula, but a practice—one that demands judgment, humility, and continuous self-examination.

Perhaps that is why leadership remains such a compelling subject. Its mastery lies in constant self-examination, not in being pressed into service as a convenient explanation for success or failure. To dismiss good leadership in difficult times, or to applaud weak leadership in moments of success, is to confuse outcome with capability—and to trade the future for the present. Fortune is cyclical, and the next round is rarely forgiving. Leadership reveals its true quality not in isolated results, but in consistency across changing conditions.

Leadership may be taught in frameworks, but it is revealed in moments—mentoring, at its best, prepares us for those moments rather than scripting them.

Trust us to get your leaders to be at their best!

Connect with us

Know your mentor