For most of their career, capable leaders are rewarded for one thing above all else: competence.
They deliver results.
They work hard.
They solve problems.
They build a reputation for being reliable, intelligent, and safe.
For a long time, that contract holds.
Effort translates into impact. Performance leads to influence. The better you are at your role, the more authority you’re given. Leadership development reinforces this logic, quietly promising that if you keep improving your skills and producing results, your influence will naturally expand.
Then, for many leaders, something changes.
The same level of effort no longer produces the same outcomes. Decisions stall. Support becomes ambiguous. Contributions are acknowledged, but not acted on. Influence feels harder to generate, even as responsibility increases.
Nothing obvious has changed about their competence.
But the rules they are operating under have.
At this point, many leaders assume the problem must be internal. They work harder, seek more feedback, invest in further development, or quietly question their own capability. The language of leadership development encourages this interpretation: if progress has slowed, something about you must need fixing.
In reality, this is often the moment when competence stops being the primary currency of influence.
Not because competence no longer matters, but because it is no longer sufficient on its own.
Understanding this shift requires moving beyond individual performance and beginning to read the system leaders are operating within. It requires recognising that leadership influence is shaped not only by what a leader does, but by how power, risk, and context interact around them.
This is where many capable leaders feel disoriented, not because they lack skill, but because they are still playing by rules that no longer apply.
Why Competence Is Supposed to Be Enough
The belief that competence should lead to influence is not naïve. It is actively taught, reinforced, and rewarded, particularly in the early and middle stages of a career.
Organisations are designed to identify and promote people who deliver results, demonstrate expertise, take responsibility, and solve problems efficiently. In relatively stable environments, this logic works well. Tasks are clear. Authority is formalised. Outcomes are measurable.
Influence flows naturally to those who perform well because performance is visible and decision-making is comparatively linear.
Leadership development supports this model by focusing on skill acquisition and behavioural improvement. Leaders are encouraged to communicate better, think more strategically, manage stakeholders, and develop emotional intelligence. These capabilities genuinely matter, and for a time, they produce tangible gains in effectiveness.
The underlying message is subtle but powerful: if you are good enough at what you do, influence will follow.
For many leaders, this belief becomes part of their professional identity. Competence is not just how they contribute; it is how they justify their authority. When influence begins to stall, it feels deeply personal, as though the system is withdrawing a contract it made.
What this model does not prepare leaders for is the moment when organisational complexity increases.
As leaders move into environments characterised by ambiguity, competing agendas, informal power, and heightened visibility, performance alone no longer determines outcomes. Influence begins to depend on factors that sit outside individual competence: who trusts whom, how risk is distributed, which narratives dominate, and where decisions are actually shaped.
At that point, continuing to rely solely on competence is not a strength.
It is a misread of the terrain.
And it is often the first sign that the leadership game has changed, even if no one has said so out loud.
When Performance No Longer Translates Into Influence
For many leaders, the moment competence stops working is not marked by failure.
It is marked by confusion.
They are still delivering. Outcomes are still being met. Problems are still being solved. On paper, performance looks strong. And yet, influence begins to thin. Decisions take longer. Support feels conditional. Momentum dissipates somewhere between discussion and action.
This shift is rarely explained directly. No one says, “The rules have changed.” Instead, leaders encounter subtler signals: their input is acknowledged but deferred; their proposals circulate without resolution; their authority feels increasingly dependent on endorsement rather than mandate.
What has changed is not the leader’s capability, but the context in which that capability is being interpreted.
As leaders move into more complex organisational terrain, performance becomes harder to separate from politics. Decisions are no longer purely technical. They carry reputational consequences, redistribute power, and activate competing interests. In this environment, outcomes are shaped less by who has the best solution and more by how risk is perceived and shared.
Competence still matters, but it is no longer self-executing.
Influence now hinges on factors that sit outside individual performance: who trusts whom, whose priorities dominate, which voices carry weight in informal spaces, and how visible a leader’s position makes them to scrutiny. The system becomes less transparent, and the pathways through which decisions are made become harder to read.
Many leaders experience this as a loss of traction. The same behaviours that once generated progress now produce diminishing returns. Effort increases, but impact plateaus. Frustration sets in, not because leaders are failing, but because the familiar relationship between effort and outcome has quietly broken down.
This transition is not evenly distributed. Leaders who sit closer to power, sponsorship, or informal networks may continue to see their competence convert into influence, while others find their work increasingly mediated by forces they cannot directly control. That unevenness intensifies the confusion, reinforcing the belief that something personal must be missing.
In reality, this is the point at which leadership stops being primarily about execution and starts being about interpretation.
Leaders who continue to rely solely on performance metrics often feel blindsided by outcomes they cannot predict or explain. Leaders who begin to read the system – the flows of influence, the distribution of risk, the unspoken constraints – are better able to understand why competence alone no longer carries the weight it once did.
This is not a failure of merit.
It is a signal that the organisational game has entered a more complex phase.
Why Leaders Try to Fix Themselves Instead of Reading the System
When competence stops translating into influence, most leaders turn inward.
This response is completely understandable. Leadership development trains leaders to interpret stalled progress as a personal gap: a skill to be developed, a behaviour to refine, a mindset to adjust. When outcomes flatten, the instinctive move is to do more: seek feedback, enrol in another program, improve communication, sharpen strategic thinking.
Earlier in a career, this reflex is often rewarded. Self-improvement produces visible gains. Performance improves. Influence grows. Over time, this pattern becomes deeply internalised.
So when influence begins to thin, leaders assume the solution must lie in further self-development.
What they rarely consider is that the system itself may be shaping outcomes in ways individual effort cannot override.
At more senior levels, organisational dynamics become less explicit. Decision-making authority blurs. Power is exercised informally. Risk is displaced rather than owned. Feedback becomes more coded. Praise is offered without commitment. Development conversations remain polite, but vague.
Leaders often interpret this ambiguity as evidence that they need to become clearer, more persuasive, more adaptive. They double down on performance while overlooking the possibility that the terrain has shifted.
This misdiagnosis carries a cost.
Leaders invest increasing energy into self-improvement while remaining blind to the forces shaping what is actually possible. They work harder, take on more responsibility, and attempt to compensate for uncertainty with effort. Over time, this leads to quiet exhaustion and self-doubt. Not because leaders lack capability, but because they are applying it in a system that no longer responds in predictable ways.
This self-fixation is not just personal; it is culturally reinforced. Organisations prefer explanations that locate problems within individuals rather than within power structures. Framing stalled influence as a development issue preserves the appearance of fairness and avoids confronting political reality.
The result is a paradox. The most conscientious and reflective leaders are often the ones who internalise systemic signals as personal shortcomings. Instead of stepping back to interpret the system, they become trapped in an endless loop of self-correction.
Political awareness interrupts this cycle.
It shifts the question from “What am I doing wrong?” to “What is shaping the outcomes I am experiencing?” This is not an abdication of responsibility. It is a recalibration of where responsibility actually sits.
At this stage of leadership, the work is no longer primarily about becoming better.
It is about becoming more discerning.
Why Results Alone No Longer Determine Outcomes
One of the most destabilising realisations for capable leaders is that results, on their own, no longer guarantee traction.
In complex organisations, outcomes are rarely evaluated in isolation. They are interpreted through lenses shaped by power, risk, and narrative. What counts as a “good result” depends not only on what was achieved, but on who sponsored it, who was exposed by it, and whose priorities it advanced or disrupted.
At this level, influence is not awarded solely for delivery.
It is mediated by perception.
Leaders may produce strong outcomes and still encounter resistance because those outcomes shift the balance of power, challenge existing arrangements, or create discomfort elsewhere in the system. Results that appear objectively positive can generate unease if they move faster than alignment, surface unresolved tensions, or threaten informal authority.
Many leaders assume that evidence will speak for itself. That a strong case, backed by data and delivery, will naturally carry decisions forward. When it doesn’t, the organisation can feel irrational or obstructive. In reality, it may be behaving quite rationally in political terms.
Decisions at this level are not just about what works. They are about what is safe, what is defensible, and what can be carried without unacceptable cost. Leaders who overlook this dimension often misread resistance as incompetence or bad faith, rather than as a signal that additional factors are in play.
This does not mean that outcomes no longer matter. They do. But they are no longer decisive on their own.
Results now compete with other forces: legacy commitments, informal alliances, reputational considerations, and the distribution of accountability. Leaders who succeed in these environments are not those who abandon performance, but those who understand how performance is weighed against competing pressures.
This is often the point where leadership begins to feel “political”. As though decisions are being made for reasons that cannot be named. For leaders accustomed to clarity and merit-based progression, this can feel disillusioning.
What is actually occurring is a shift from a performance-dominated system to a power-mediated one.
Leaders who continue to rely exclusively on results find themselves repeatedly surprised by outcomes they cannot control. Leaders who recognise that results must be positioned (not just delivered) are better able to navigate the terrain without losing integrity.
This is not about manipulation.
It is about understanding how decisions are truly shaped.
What Changes When Leaders Read Context Instead of Chasing Approval
When leaders recognise that competence alone no longer determines influence, there is often an initial sense of confusion. The rules they trusted no longer apply cleanly. Effort no longer guarantees traction. Feedback no longer explains outcomes.
But for leaders who make the shift from self-correction to system interpretation, something else emerges: choice.
Reading context does not mean abandoning standards or diluting values. It means understanding that influence operates within constraints that cannot be ignored or outworked. Leaders who develop this awareness stop chasing approval through visibility and effort and start paying attention to how decisions are actually formed.
They notice where influence concentrates rather than where it is formally assigned. They observe who is consulted early, whose concerns shape framing, and which risks quietly govern what is possible. They pay attention to timing – not just what is said, but when it is said, and by whom.
This shift often brings relief.
Instead of treating every stalled decision as a referendum on their capability, leaders can locate resistance within the system itself. They differentiate between what they can control and what must be navigated. Leadership does not become easier, but it becomes more intelligible.
Reading context also changes how leaders expend energy.
Rather than pushing harder in public forums, they may invest more effort in understanding informal dynamics. Rather than seeking validation through constant contribution, they become more selective about when and where they speak. Rather than equating visibility with influence, they learn to discern when restraint carries more weight than performance.
Leaders who operate this way often appear calmer because they are no longer fighting the system blindly. Their actions become more intentional. Their influence, while less overt, becomes more reliable.
At this stage, leadership stops being about proving worth and starts being about positioning contribution so it can land.
This is the quiet competence of political awareness – not as manipulation, but as fluency.
Competence Still Matters — But It Isn’t the Whole Game
None of this diminishes the importance of competence.
Results still matter. Expertise still matters. The ability to deliver, think clearly, and take responsibility remains foundational to leadership credibility. Political awareness does not replace competence; it builds on it.
What changes is the assumption that competence alone is sufficient.
In complex organisational environments, influence is shaped by more than performance. It is mediated by context, constrained by risk, and negotiated through relationships that sit outside formal structure. Leaders who fail to recognise this often experience stalled impact, not because they lack capability, but because they are relying on a model of leadership that no longer reflects the reality they are operating in.
For some, this realisation is confronting. It disrupts the comfort of merit-based narratives and challenges the belief that good work will inevitably be recognised and rewarded. For others, it brings clarity. It explains why effort can feel disconnected from outcome and why doing more does not always lead to greater influence.
Understanding this shift allows leaders to move beyond self-blame and frustration. It creates space to consider how decisions are shaped, how power circulates, and how influence can be exercised without compromising integrity.
Competence becomes one element of leadership effectiveness, necessary, but no longer the only one.
At this stage, leadership requires a different kind of intelligence. One that can read systems as well as tasks, context as well as capability, and consequence as well as intent.
In Conclusion
For leaders who have built their careers on being capable, the moment when competence stops working can feel deeply unsettling.
Nothing appears to be “wrong,” yet progress slows. Influence becomes harder to generate. The familiar relationship between effort and impact breaks down without explanation.
This is not a personal failure.
It is a contextual shift.
As organisations grow more complex, leadership becomes less about execution and more about interpretation. Influence is shaped not only by what leaders do, but by how their actions land within a system of power, risk, and informal authority.
Leaders who continue to rely solely on competence often find themselves working harder for diminishing returns. Leaders who develop the ability to read context gain a different form of leverage, one of understanding rather than effort.
This does not make leadership easier or more comfortable.
It does make it more intelligible.
And for many leaders, that understanding is the difference between feeling stalled and regaining a sense of agency in environments where the rules are rarely stated, but always in effect.
If this experience feels familiar, it may be less about effort and more about interpretation. The Political Intelligence Compass explores how leaders can understand their natural influence patterns and the contexts they operate within. You can explore it here.
About the Author
Rosalind Cardinal is a leadership strategist, author, and founder of Shaping Change, an award-winning consultancy helping leaders and organisations build cultures where people and performance thrive. With a background in organisational development and neuroscience-based coaching, Ros works with boards, executives, and teams to create lasting change through clarity, courage, and connection.
Book a chat with Ros.
Read next: Why Silence in Leadership Meetings is Rarely Neutral