Why a good professional doesn't always make a good HOA or KSK chairperson

A good engineer, accountant, lawyer, entrepreneur, or simply an active owner. Someone who knows their craft, gets results, and has the neighbors' trust. So they're nominated to chair the HOA or KSK. Sound familiar?

At first glance it all makes sense: the building gets a competent, responsible leader.

But... a few months go by, and it becomes clear that professional knowledge and good faith alone aren't enough.

You can be excellent at technical matters and still struggle to negotiate with owners. You can know the law inside out and still freeze up during a conflict. You can get used to making decisions on your own, then suddenly face dozens of people, each with their own interests and their own idea of how the building should be run.

And that raises an important question: what qualities do we actually choose a chairperson for?

Since I run business training on management competencies, I follow research that sheds light on questions in this field.

So, recently I came across a study by the BITOBE and ERALIDER teams. They analyzed 3,352 profiles, more than 80% of which belonged to managers at various levels, and compared 25 characteristics. On 17 indicators, they found statistically significant differences between management levels.

I picked out five observations that are interesting to apply to managing apartment buildings.

1. Stress tolerance

In the study, low stress tolerance showed up in 23.7% of specialists and 20.8% of lower-level managers. At higher levels of management, resilience to pressure was greater.

Now picture an HOA chairperson's ordinary day: an emergency on a weekend, unhappy residents, a contractor who didn't deliver, not enough money for repairs, and a chat demanding an immediate answer.

And all of it — at the same time.

The ability to keep thinking and acting clearly under these conditions is a management competency no less important than knowing engineering systems.

2. Sociability and the ability to negotiate

Among top-level executives, low sociability showed up in only 5%, compared with 13.6% in the other groups.

An HOA chairperson can't run a building with orders alone. They have to work with owners, the building council, contractors, and government bodies: explaining, listening, reconciling interests, and finding solutions people are willing to support.

And sociability doesn't necessarily mean being talkative. To me, it's above all the ability to build working relationships.

3. The ability to make decisions

High indecisiveness was noted in 30.1% of specialists and only 10.1% of top-level executives.

Ideal conditions rarely exist in building management. Information is incomplete, money is short, opinions differ — and the problem still has to be solved.

But it's important here to distinguish managerial decisiveness from making decisions unilaterally. A chairperson needs to be able to act within their authority and organize the decisions that actually belong to the owners.

4. Attitude toward the status of being a leader

In the study, high motivation by status showed up in 38.3% of top-level executives, versus 23.3% in the other groups.

This is especially interesting to look at for elected positions in apartment buildings.

Why does someone agree to become chairperson? Do they want to bring order? To apply their professional knowledge? To earn their neighbors' recognition? To influence what happens in the building?

The motives can vary. But it's worth remembering: being elected chairperson isn't just authority — it's also responsibility, the need to negotiate, and acting within the boundaries set by law.

5. Being a good professional and being a good leader aren't the same thing

This is, I think, the main takeaway I carry over into our field.

We often choose a chairperson based on professional experience, activity level, or willingness to take on the building's problems. But we rarely discuss whether the person is actually ready for leadership work.

And an HOA or KSK chairperson isn't just someone who carries out the owners' instructions. It's an elected leadership position that involves organizing work, interacting with people, managing resources, and being accountable for decisions within their authority.

Of course, findings from research on corporate executives can't be applied directly to HOA and KSK chairpersons. Their working conditions, authority, and appointment mechanisms are different. But the research gives good reason to think.

Do we choose someone who understands the building's problems well, or someone capable of organizing their solution?

There's one more question that seems to me just as important.

We expect professional management from the chairperson. But are we ourselves ready to create the conditions for it: defining tasks, providing the necessary resources, making decisions within the owners' own authority, and taking part in oversight?

Because even the strongest leader can't replace every owner.

I'd be interested to hear from HOA and KSK chairpersons.

What turned out to be hardest for you after being elected: technical issues, managing the finances, making decisions, or dealing with people?

And you, owners — if you were choosing your building's chairperson again today, what qualities would you look at first?