Stop hiring for confidence, start hiring for capability

Construction operates in some of the most complex and high-risk environments of any industry. Projects are interdependent, margins are tight, and decisions made early carry consequences that often only show up much later. In this context, leadership capability is not an abstract concern. It sits directly at the centre of delivery, risk and long-term performance.

Yet many organisations continue to rely on proxies for capability that do not reliably predict how someone will operate in these conditions. Linear career paths, confidence in presentation, and ease of communication often shape leadership selection more than judgement, problem-solving and the ability to work through complexity.

On-site and across delivery roles, capability is identified quickly and often well. People who can diagnose issues, identify where plans will fail and adapt in real-time are valued because their impact is immediate and visible.

As progression moves into leadership, assessment becomes more removed from the work itself. Instead of judging how people perform in complex environments, organisations begin to judge how they present themselves in formal settings. The result is that the capability that is clear in practice is often overlooked in hiring and promotion decisions.

As a chairwoman and someone who is autistic, I see this differently. The question is not how leaders present themselves, but how effectively they think and challenge assumptions under pressure. Many neurodivergent individuals bring strengths that are highly relevant to the construction sector: the ability to identify failure points early, interrogate assumptions; maintain precision under pressure; and work through complexity without oversimplifying it, particularly when assessing risk across interconnected systems.

Progressing into leadership while neurodivergent often means carrying an additional layer of work. There is the role itself, the sequencing, the decision-making and the problem-solving. Alongside that sits the expectation to conform to a narrow model of how a leader should communicate, behave and present. That expectation is not a measure of capability, but often becomes a filter for progression.

The industry frequently filters out individuals who do not align with that model, even when they are well-suited to the demands of the role.

This is often framed as an inclusion issue, and it is. But it is also a performance issue. When organisations prioritise surface indicators over how people actually think and operate, they narrow their leadership pipeline.

They also increase risk. In a sector defined by complexity and interdependence, weak judgement at the leadership level does not stay contained – it shows up later in delivery.

If the industry is serious about strengthening performance, it needs to align how it identifies leadership capability with the realities of the work itself.

That means assessing how people approach complex problems, how they interrogate risk, and how they make decisions under pressure, not how convincingly they present in structured settings.

Construction does not fail because people lack confidence. It fails when risk is not seen early, when assumptions go unchallenged, and when complexity is oversimplified. Leadership selection should reflect that reality.

Michelle Carson is the founder and chair of Holmes Noble, a global leadership advisory and executive search firm.