The Long Shadow of Greatness: How Star Connections Shape Careers Beyond Performance

In leadership circles, we often hear that performance speaks for itself. Yet a new study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology questions just how true that is—especially for those who have once worked closely with star performers. Drawing on data from real-world career outcomes and controlled experiments, Liu, Kilduff, Lee, and Fisher (2025) show that the benefits—and burdens—of working with industry stars can echo across a person’s career for years.

The researchers found that individuals with a visible connection to high-performing stars (what they term the star-connected) are buffered from the usual consequences of underperformance. Yet this protection comes with a cost: when they overperform, they are rewarded less. Why? Because expectations were already so high. The result is a distortion in how performance is interpreted—both upward and downward.

A compelling illustration of this comes from a case study at the heart of the research: the career trajectories of NBA coaches between 1976 and 2015. The data showed that head coaches who had previously served under legendary figures—coaches widely recognized as “stars”—were significantly less likely to be fired after poor seasons than their peers without such connections. At the same time, when these star-connected coaches achieved strong results, they were less likely to be promoted or recognized than others. In essence, the reflected glory of their former associations insulated them from failure, but also diluted the credit for their success.

This phenomenon speaks directly to a broader leadership theme: the role of social capital. Social capital refers to the value embedded in relationships, networks, and shared affiliations. In leadership contexts, it shapes how people are perceived, trusted, and evaluated. Those with high-status connections—like the star-connected coaches in this study—carry the reputational capital of their past associations. But social capital, while often advantageous, also has a shadow side. As this research shows, it can inflate expectations, distort evaluations, and make it harder for actual performance to stand on its own. Leaders benefit not only from what they do, but from whom they’ve known—and that benefit can persist long after the original tie has faded.

The underlying mechanism, the researchers argue, is balance theory—a psychological principle suggesting that people seek consistency in their mental associations. Evaluators are more likely to explain away a star-connected individual’s poor performance to preserve the belief that they “come from greatness.” Conversely, when those individuals excel, evaluators see it as merely meeting expectations. Their actual performance becomes less diagnostic because their story has already been written.

There are clear implications here. For managers and HR leaders, the findings raise questions about hidden biases in performance evaluation. A star-studded résumé may unconsciously soften our critique or inflate our expectations. For employees, the lesson is more nuanced: those without star connections may be more exposed to the hard edge of performance-based judgment, while those with such ties must work harder to distinguish their achievements from their affiliations.

Ultimately, the research offers a reminder that leadership evaluation is never purely objective. Even when the performance data is available, our judgments are shaped by narrative, reputation, and the subtle pull of associations past. As organizations seek to cultivate fair and accountable leadership cultures, understanding the power—and distortion—of reflected glory may be an essential step.

Source: Liu, L., Kilduff, M., Lee, S. Y., & Fisher, C. M. (2025). Buffered by reflected glory? The effects of star connections on career outcomes.Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001293

Photo: Hoopshype