4 hours ago
2
For ambitious professionals on the road to the C-suite, having influential mentors or a high-profile boss can feel like a golden ticket. Star connections open doors, create early opportunities, and often fast-track promotions. But new research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology finds that those same relationships may eventually become a career liability when it comes to long-term performance evaluations.
Researchers studied the careers of 179 NBA head coaches over four decades. They discovered that those who had previously worked under industry icons, such as legendary coach Phil Jackson, were more likely to be shielded from consequences when they underperformed. However, when they overperformed, they were not rewarded to the same degree as peers without star connections. These effects lingered for as long as nine years after the professional relationship with the star had ended.
To test the findings outside of professional sports, the researchers also conducted an experimental study with nearly 500 working professionals. Participants were asked to evaluate two hypothetical new hires in the design industry—one with a previous tie to a well-known industry leader and one without. Despite both employees receiving the same objective performance scores, the star-connected employee received less credit for strong results and more leniency for poor ones.
The researchers point to a concept in psychology known as balance theory to explain this outcome. People are more likely to rationalize information that confirms their existing beliefs. When someone has worked with a respected leader, evaluators often set elevated expectations and interpret that person’s success as expected. If they fail to meet those expectations, evaluators may still assume they are talented and simply experiencing an off moment.
This tendency can have significant consequences in corporate settings. When prestige-by-association shapes evaluations, actual performance can be overlooked. High expectations can create a glass ceiling for recognition, while those without famous connections may be judged more critically regardless of their results.
The findings have significant implications for executives responsible for succession planning and talent development. Notably, the tendency to equate pedigree with potential can create blind spots, distort performance evaluations, and hinder the recognition of actual merit. Structured performance reviews, clearly defined evaluation criteria, and diverse decision-making panels can help mitigate these biases, however.
For rising leaders, the findings serve as a clear reminder that reputation by association is not enough. Even with a prestigious résumé, it’s critical to articulate and document specific achievements, especially in high-stakes moments, because, as the research shows, the paradox of modern leadership is that while connections can help you land the job, they may make it harder to prove you’ve truly earned it.
Ruth Umoh
ruth.umoh@fortune.com
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
English (US) ·