Are organisations always promoting the best leaders, or simply the people who are best at pleasing those already in power?
Management theory suggests this is a real organisational risk. When promotions are no longer based mainly on measurable contribution, they can easily become influenced by familiarity, personal loyalty, agreement and visibility.
We see this through impression management, where employees carefully shape how senior leaders see them. We see it through Leader–Member Exchange, where managers naturally build closer relationships with a trusted inner circle. And we see it through similarity bias, where leaders may favour people who think and behave like them.
Add flattery and office politics into the mix, and genuine performance can quickly become secondary.
As a result, a less capable person may secure the role. But the greater danger is not simply one questionable promotion. It is the gradual replacement of meritocracy with what I'd call a "friendtocracy": a system in which familiarity, personal loyalty and proximity to power carry more weight than competence and results.
And that is not the message leaders should want to send across their organisations.
When people see that constant agreement or (buddy-ness) is rewarded, they quickly learn that challenging a decision may be risky for their careers. Over time, psychological safety weakens, groupthink grows and leaders become surrounded by yes-people who tell them what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear.
History has shown us the wider dangers of cultures that discourage challenge. The Challenger disaster and the collapse of Enron both demonstrated the consequences of environments in which difficult questions and warning signs were ignored or overshadowed in order to protect the prevailing narrative. Similar cultural dynamics were also evident in the Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal, where organisational pressure and a reluctance to challenge decisions contributed to a major corporate ethics failure.
Of course, building relationships, being visible and understanding organisational politics are all legitimate professional skills. But they should support competence, not replace it.
For me, promotion decisions should come down to three things: whether the person can deliver results, whether they act with integrity and whether they have the courage to challenge poor decisions respectfully when it really matters.
Promotions do much more than fill empty positions. They show the whole organisation what kind of behaviour is valued and rewarded.
So, before approving the next promotion, leadership teams should ask themselves one honest question:
Are we choosing the person best equipped to lead, or simply the person best equipped to please?