The Less-Than-Obvious Leadership Gap
Updated: Sep 4
Leadership development often focuses on acquiring more knowledge and better skills. Yet neuroscience, psychology and Stoic philosophy suggest lasting leadership change may depend on something deeper: changing the identity we repeatedly reinforce.
There is a particularly frustrating experience reserved for intelligent, self-aware leaders: knowing better and watching yourself do it anyway.
You know you should have the conversation, but another week passes. You understand the importance of delegation, yet somehow the work finds its way back onto your desk. You know the comment in the meeting wasn't personal, but you are still replaying it on the drive home, refining the response you wish you had given.
None of this happens through a lack of information. In fact, that may be part of the problem.
Successful people become extraordinarily good at accumulating knowledge. We read, study, analyse, attend leadership development programs and develop increasingly sophisticated language for describing ourselves. Given enough time, we can explain precisely why we behave as we do, identify the experience that may have contributed to it, name the leadership theory that challenges it and recommend three books on how to change it.
And remain completely unchanged.
What you know isn't necessarily who you are.
Knowledge can change what you understand without necessarily changing how you respond. The distinction becomes painfully apparent under pressure, when a carefully considered leadership philosophy gives way to a response rehearsed for years. A leader can genuinely value collaboration while instinctively protecting control, advocate courageous conversations while avoiding one herself, or encourage her team to take risks while becoming deeply uncomfortable when somebody else's risk places her reputation on the line.
Knowledge can change what you understand without necessarily changing how you respond.
Sigmund Freud was interested in this distance between conscious intention and behaviour more than a century before neuroscience gave us sophisticated ways of examining the brain. His first model of the mind distinguished between conscious, preconscious and unconscious processes. His later model introduced the id, ego and superego — competing psychological forces that helped explain why what we consciously intend and what ultimately drives our behaviour are not always the same thing.
Freud was constructing psychological theory rather than mapping neural circuitry, but his central observation remains provocative.
Not everything governing you requires your permission.
That proposition becomes uncomfortable when applied to leadership because it challenges one of our favourite assumptions: that awareness creates change. Awareness matters enormously but recognising a pattern and replacing it are two different things.
This is where neuroplasticity and leadership development intersect.
The adult brain is not a finished structure. Perhaps one of the most compelling demonstrations comes from the work of neuroscientist Eleanor Maguire and colleagues at University College London, who studied the extraordinary spatial learning required of London's licensed taxi drivers.
To acquire what is famously called The Knowledge, trainees spend years learning London's complex network of streets and landmarks. Earlier research found structural differences in the hippocampi of qualified taxi drivers, but that left an obvious question: did the training change their brains, or were people with different hippocampi simply more likely to become successful taxi drivers?
Maguire's team subsequently followed trainee drivers over several years. Those who successfully qualified showed increased grey matter volume in the posterior hippocampus; those who did not qualify and the control participants did not show the same structural change.
Learning had left a measurable footprint on the adult brain.
That is neuroplasticity.
It does not mean you can declare yourself transformed on Monday morning and possess a fundamentally different brain by lunchtime. Nor does it prove that practising courage or delegation will enlarge some convenient “leadership region” of the brain.
The science is far more interesting when we resist exaggerating it.
Experience matters. Learning matters. Repetition matters. The adult brain retains a capacity for structural adaptation.
Who you have been does not have an exclusive claim on who you become.
And that changes the leadership conversation entirely.
A Decision Can Take a Second, Becoming Takes Longer
We often imagine meaningful behavioural change as something gradual. Sometimes it is. Yet anyone who has made a decision that permanently altered the trajectory of their life knows that the moment of decision itself can be remarkably fast.
There is a point where consideration becomes conviction.
Enough.
You leave. You stay. You speak. You stop tolerating something. You finally have the conversation. You decide that the way you have been leading, living or responding is no longer acceptable.
The direction can change immediately, though what cannot be compressed simultaneously.
A decision creates a new possibility. It does not automatically extinguish the responses you have spent years rehearsing. The old pattern remains familiar and readily available, particularly when pressure strips away the luxury of considered thought.
This is where leadership change becomes less glamorous.
The decision has to survive repetition.
Stoicism, Discipline and Leadership: Seneca Knew the Value of Rehearsal
Nearly two thousand years before neuroscience gave us the language of neuroplasticity, the Roman Stoic Seneca was advocating something remarkably compatible with this principle: deliberate preparation for discomfort.
In his Moral Letters to Lucilius, Seneca recommended periodically practising voluntary hardship. His reasoning was not masochistic. He wanted his student to discover that many of the circumstances he feared were survivable and that anticipation itself could amplify suffering. Elsewhere, Seneca repeatedly examined the human tendency to suffer events in imagination before reality had required us to endure them.
The objective was preparation.
This distinction matters for leadership.
Discipline is frequently reduced to productivity: waking earlier, exercising consistently, completing the task, following the plan. Yet discipline has a more sophisticated function. It allows us to rehearse a chosen response before circumstances demand it from us.
A leader who repeatedly practises remaining composed under challenge is doing more than demonstrating restraint. She is building familiarity with that response. The leader who tolerates uncertainty without immediately reaching for control is practising a different relationship with uncertainty. The woman who speaks when self-protection tells her to remain silent begins accumulating evidence that discomfort does not have to dictate her behaviour.
Discipline is rehearsal for the person you have decided to become.
Seneca was not describing neuroplasticity, and pretending otherwise would be intellectually careless. Stoicism is a philosophy of living; neuroplasticity is a biological property of the nervous system.
Yet the convergence is difficult to ignore.
What we repeatedly practise matters.
Grit and Leadership: The Decision Still Has to Survive Tuesday
Psychologist Angela Duckworth's research gives us another piece of the equation.
In her influential 2007 research with Christopher Peterson, Michael Matthews and Dennis Kelly, Duckworth studied performance across demanding environments including West Point, Ivy League education and the National Spelling Bee. They defined grit as perseverance and passion for long-term goals and found that it offered some predictive value for achievement beyond measures such as IQ and conscientiousness.
Grit was not destiny. Across the outcomes examined, it accounted for an average of approximately four per cent of the variance in success — an important qualification that often disappears when psychological research reaches popular culture.
Its relevance to leadership is more precise.
Grit matters after the emotional intensity of the decision has disappeared.
It is relatively easy to decide to become more courageous while sitting in a leadership retreat discussing courage. It is considerably harder on an ordinary Tuesday when speaking carries political risk, your diary is full, somebody has questioned your judgement and the old response would make the immediate discomfort disappear.
That is where leadership behaviour begins to change.
Not in the declaration.
In the repetition.
Leadership Identity: Where Change Becomes Personal
This is also where the work of Peter Crone provides an interesting contemporary lens. Crone's approach to self-leadership focuses heavily on the subconscious narratives and identities from which people operate — particularly the constraints created when we become identified with beliefs about who we are.
Leadership makes that question particularly confronting.
We tend to describe deeply rehearsed behaviours as personality.
I'm just a perfectionist.
I've always been controlling.
I'm not confrontational.
I work better under pressure.
Perhaps.
Or perhaps these are explanations that have been repeated often enough to acquire the authority of identity.
There is an important distinction here. Neuroplasticity does not prove Crone's model of identity, just as it does not scientifically validate Stoicism or Freud. These are different bodies of thought addressing different questions.
Placed beside one another, however, they expose an intriguing possibility.
What if some of what we defend as identity is actually familiarity?
Changing your leadership identity then becomes more sophisticated than standing in front of a mirror and announcing a more desirable version of yourself. A new identity without corresponding behaviour is merely aspiration.
A new identity without corresponding behaviour is merely aspiration.
Identity needs evidence.
You make the decision to lead differently, then behave accordingly. You do it when it is inconvenient. You repeat it when nobody notices. You hold the boundary when somebody tests it. You remain composed when provocation offers you every justification not to. You relinquish control without relinquishing standards.
Eventually, something changes.
The behaviour stops feeling borrowed.
You stop trying to become the woman who leads that way and begin recognising that woman as yourself.
Have We Got Leadership Development Backwards?
Leadership development has largely been built around acquisition.
Another qualification. Another capability. Another leadership framework. Another book sitting beside the three we haven't finished.
There is nothing wrong with learning. Intellectual development matters enormously, particularly in a world asking leaders to navigate increasing complexity.
Yet there comes a point when acquiring more knowledge can become an extraordinarily sophisticated form of avoidance.
The more useful question is no longer What don't I know?
It is:
What do I already know that I am still unwilling to embody?
Duckworth gives us a language for persistence. Seneca reminds us that discipline can alter our relationship with discomfort. Freud reminds us that conscious intention is not the only influence on behaviour. Crone brings the question back to self-leadership and the identities and narratives through which we understand ourselves. And neuroscience gives us perhaps the most consequential piece of all: the adult brain retains the capacity to change in response to experience and learning.
None of them, independently, provides a complete theory of leadership.
Together, they point towards something worth considering.
Knowledge can inform you, but it cannot make the decision for you. A decision can alter your direction, but it cannot do the repetitions. Discipline creates those repetitions. Grit helps sustain them when the emotional reward disappears. Repeated experience gives change somewhere to take root.
And identity gives that change somewhere to belong.
Perhaps this is the part of leadership development we have underestimated. We have become very good at teaching leaders what to know and considerably less interested in asking who that knowledge requires them to become.
Your brain can change.
Your behaviour can change.
Your identity can change.
Understanding those things is not enough.
At some point, leadership asks you to choose. Then to practise. Then to persist long enough for the woman you decided to become to have more evidence behind her than the woman you have always assumed yourself to be.
Leadership, after all, asks us to take people somewhere they have not yet been.
The first person you have to lead there is yourself.
Meet the expert:
Jo Jackson hosts the Think Uncommon podcast and has recently authored her first book entitled Reclaim The Fire: A Woman's Proclamation For The Return Of The Uncommon Man. Jo has been established as a Performance Architect for over a decade, focusing on restoring nervous system balance to build composure and authority in high-stakes men who make decisions under pressure.
Dive Deeper Into Her Wealth of Knowledge:
Follow:
