[bonoboTP]

But what if it's a self fulfilling bias in the sense that he actually will be a better leader precisely because that little unconscious man in people's minds will say those kinds of things to them and they will actually be more likely to follow his lead than if you put a weakling in his place who is technically better versed in software.

As in, society is biased to pick the square-jaw guy for leadership, because society knows that society follows square-jaw guys in leader roles better.

[dunmalg]

>they will actually be more likely to follow his lead

Good leadership is less about convincing people to follow you than it is about being able to lead people in the right direction. David Koresh was highly charismatic and convinced a lot of people to follow him, but I doubt anyone would consider him a "good leader".

[bonoboTP]

Or perhaps it's more about synchronizing, like a musical orchestra under a conductor's lead. Whichever piece they play, it matters most that they play the same piece to the same beat and pulse, instead of everyone trying to play their own favorite melody.

Often among roughly equally talented people what matters is to have a clear vision, any vision and to orient a whole group towards the same direction. It's really hard to judge in advance who is better in long term vision and strategy. Experts don't have a great track record in this and CEOs also don't seem to have a great sense of direction (ie their track record quickly regresses to the mean).

Leadership is to a large degree about crafting a convincing narrative and fostering acting in unison. "To make people long for the sea" etc.