Leadership presence is often treated as a stable competency. In practice, it is evaluated differently at each layer of the organisation.

At middle management level, presence is frequently associated with confident delivery, decisiveness in operational matters, and visible ownership of team performance. Professionals who excel here are perceived as strong leaders within their remit. They communicate clearly, manage complexity within scope, and execute reliably.

At C-suite level, the criteria shift.

Executives are less concerned with how effectively a leader manages today’s agenda. They assess whether that leader can shape tomorrow’s direction. The distinction is subtle but decisive. The question moves from “Can this person run a function?” to “Can this person influence the enterprise?”

This is where many high-performing ethnic-cultural professionals encounter an invisible evaluation gap.

Operational excellence, even at scale, does not automatically signal enterprise readiness. C-suite leaders look for evidence of strategic framing: the ability to define root causes rather than symptoms, to connect functional decisions to market positioning, and to articulate trade-offs in terms of long-term value creation. They listen for how a leader thinks, not only what they deliver.

They also observe influence patterns.

At senior executive level, leadership presence is inseparable from horizontal credibility. Who references your perspective when you are not in the room? Do peers consult you on cross-functional decisions? Can you align competing interests without relying on hierarchy? These signals travel informally but weigh heavily in succession conversations.

Failure philosophy is another under-recognised dimension. Mid-level environments reward rapid problem resolution. C-suite environments assess how leaders metabolise setbacks. Do they contain reputational risk? Do they extract enterprise-wide learning? Do they demonstrate steadiness under ambiguity? Presence at this level is measured in judgement, not presentation style.

When organisations do not articulate these layered criteria explicitly, progression becomes opaque. Professionals may refine communication delivery while overlooking strategic positioning. They strengthen team management while remaining underexposed in enterprise forums. Performance remains visible within function, yet indistinct at board level.

For organisations building an ethnic-cultural leadership pipeline, clarity on evaluation logic is structural, not cosmetic. Without it, capable leaders plateau despite readiness. Succession pools narrow. Development investment yields limited return because the signalling gap remains unaddressed.

The progression question is therefore not whether a leader appears confident. It is whether their thinking is legible at enterprise level.

If you are assessing your next leadership step, consider how your contribution is interpreted three layers above your role. If your organisation is reviewing succession criteria, examine whether executive readiness is defined explicitly or inferred informally.

Leadership presence evolves with altitude. The evaluation lens must be understood accordingly.