Management

Leadership and cognitive bias: why we reward those who show up and ignore those who make things work

Comparison of two opposing management approaches: one visible and reactive, the other discreet and preventive. The hidden cost of perception in the company

28 May 2025

4' min read

Today I want to tell you two fictional stories, but not too much. Two managers, two opposite approaches to work, two very different outcomes. Both work in structured companies, with comparable responsibilities, teams to manage and goals to achieve. But there is one difference that makes all the difference: one shows up, the other does not.

Marco, the hero manager

Marco is everywhere. Always on the phone, always in a meeting, always with an urgency to deal with. He is the first to arrive in the morning, the last to leave in the evening. When there is a problem, Marco is there. When something goes wrong, he is the first to intervene. His bosses appreciate him: he is present, reactive, 'on the ball'. They see him solving emergencies, taking charge of thorny issues, assuming the responsibilities of others. He gives the idea of being a key man, someone who can always be counted on.

His team, however, has a different perception. Marco centralises everything: he does not delegate, does not leave space, does not build autonomy. Every decision goes through him. This slows down processes, multiplies inefficiencies and generates stress. Projects pile up, deadlines slip, the most competent people leave.

There is more. Marco is also a perfect yes man. He never says no. He accepts every request, even unrealistic ones, even those that overload the team or compromise the quality of projects. He knows that saying yes all the time allows him to appear helpful and collaborative in the eyes of management. But often those same 'yeses' turn, weeks later, into the problems that he then has the pleasure (and visibility) of solving.

Julia, the invisible manager

Giulia, on the other hand, is almost invisible. Not because she does not work, but because everything runs smoothly. She plans ahead, builds an autonomous and cohesive team, establishes clear and sustainable processes. If there is a potential problem, she often intercepts it before it becomes real. His office is quiet, projects are closed on time, the climate is positive.

Unlike Marco, Giulia knows how to say no. When a request jeopardises the quality of work or the well-being of the team, Giulia argues, proposes alternatives, exposes herself. She does this with courage and responsibility, but is not always understood. On some occasions, management has interpreted her attitude as a sign of inflexibility or lack of collaboration.

And yet, those very 'no's' have prevented criticality, delays, tensions. They have protected the projects and the team. But this work of prevention, which prevents emergencies from arising, often remains under the radar. And in a corporate culture that rewards reactivity more than planning, Giulia runs the risk of not being recognised for its true value.

The hidden cost of corporate heroism

Having many 'heroes' like Marco in the company may seem, at first sight, positive. But the hidden price of this model is high. According to Gallup, companies with high levels of turnover spend on average between 50% and 200% of the annual salary to replace an employee. In environments where emergence is constant, stress and demotivation spread, leading to resignations and declining productivity.

Furthermore, a culture based on urgency stifles innovation. If everyone is busy 'putting out fires', no one has time or energy to think strategically or improve processes. The apparent vitality translates, in the medium to long term, into inefficiency and loss of competitiveness.

A question of managerial bias

This asymmetry of perception is far from coincidental. Behavioural psychology has shown how many managers are influenced by unconscious cognitive bias when evaluating the performance of employees.

Among the most frequent:

- Availability bias: what we see most often - such as Marco's continuous presence - seems more important or effective to us, even if it is not.

- Effort heuristic: we tend to evaluate positively those who show great visible effort, confusing this with real effectiveness.

- Action bias: those who constantly intervene are perceived as more helpful, even if the intervention does not produce results.

- Invisibility bias: those who manage well and discreetly are often ignored, because their effectiveness manifests itself in the absence of problems.

- Attribution bias: if something goes wrong, we look for a culprit; if everything goes right, we attribute it 'to the system'.

In short, we more easily evaluate what is visible, not what actually works. And so merit, in certain contexts, can become a matter of perception rather than results. That is why, all too often, effective leadership remains invisible.

Conclusions

Marco appears tireless, but he himself often generates the chaos that he then tames. Giulia keeps everything under control, but precisely because of this she disappears from the radar. Marco is a 'problem solver', Giulia is a 'problem preventer'. These two stories raise a question that is as simple as it is uncomfortable: in a company, do we reward those who work well or those who show up while they work? In your opinion, which one will make a career?

*Corporate Manager .