Why Effective Leaders Get Branded as Problems
By: Emma Pfanzelt | August 13, 2026
We spend so much time building and polishing our personal leadership styles, assuming that if we create a strong enough playbook, we can bring it into any room and succeed. But real leadership rarely works that way. Every once in a while, you come across a piece of writing that gently pulls the rug out from under that assumption and makes you step back to evaluate how you actually show up for the people around you.
For a long time, when I stepped into a leadership role, I assumed that good leadership meant developing a strong, reliable personal style and bringing that exact playbook everywhere I went. If something wasn't working with a team, I figured I just needed to try harder, communicate clearer, or fix the issue myself. Sometimes that approach worked. Sometimes it didn't. Sometimes the team didn't need my default playbook at all – they needed steady direction, or extra space to process, or an environment where they felt safe to share a different perspective.
That is why I enjoyed reading Harvard Business Review’s article, “Why Effective Leaders Get Branded as Problems,” by Luis Velasquez. His research explores how organizations frequently fall into an "evaluation trap" – the habit of assuming that whenever friction arises, the leader’s personal behavior is the sole problem that needs to be fixed. In reality, Velasquez points out that friction usually comes from one of four distinct sources: a true skill gap, an outdated historical reputation, an overextension of a core strength, or a systemic constraint within the environment itself.
We see these dynamics play out in organizations all the time. Take an executive who moves with incredible speed and decisiveness: in a fast-moving culture, that’s a superpower, but in an organization that has normalized over-consensus, her urgency gets branded as recklessness. Or consider a manager who was celebrated in earlier roles for their sharp attention to detail, only to step into a broader scope where that same habit gets labeled as micromanagement. And then there are the leaders who actively updated their communication style years ago, yet remain stuck under the shadow of an outdated reputation because their organization relies on old memories rather than recent evidence.
I see these exact dynamics play out in my own life at college as the president of both our club volleyball team and club tennis team. Whether on the court or behind the scenes, people look to me to step up, make decisions, and guide the team. But reading this article made me pause and reflect on how my teammates actually experience my leadership. Does my style make them feel empowered and glad to have me leading, or am I relying too heavily on my own default habits? Every player comes in with a different personality, background, and motivation. I want to make sure everyone has a great, consistent experience, which means I have to actively adjust to them. My main priority is creating an environment where everyone has a genuine outlet and feels completely comfortable approaching me about anything.
Asking these hard questions forces us to realize something liberating: when you start somewhere new and things aren't clicking, it doesn't automatically mean your style is flawed, it might simply be a mismatch between your style and the environment.
That is where real leadership kicks in. Leading a team means recognizing that people genuinely rely on you, which requires you to constantly adjust, pivot, and tailor your approach to accommodate what your team needs to succeed. Personally, whenever I am leading in a new environment, my primary goal is to understand and accommodate everyone’s individual working style and make sure every single voice has a space to be heard. When we adjust for our people, instead of expecting them to bend to us, we create trust, unlock individual strengths, and help everyone thrive together.
This connects directly to our Strong Road strategy. True organizational success happens when we build environments that are flexible enough to adjust to all styles of working, rather than forcing everyone into a single mold. By embedding this level of adaptability into our culture, we ensure our environment supports diverse approaches, fosters genuine collaboration, and empowers every person to perform at their best.
Ultimately, effective leadership isn't about perfection. It is about remaining open, curious, and adaptable enough to pivot for the people who count on us.
When we stop assuming a leader needs fixing and start asking how we can build environments where everyone thrives, the path forward becomes so much clearer. I’m curious how this plays out in your own leadership journey.
Have you ever had to radically pivot your style to meet a team where they were, or seen an organization misdiagnose friction as a personal flaw? How do you ensure every voice on your team actually gets heard?
