I recall a time when I was working at an organization that had promoted one of its strongest performing managers into a senior leadership role. On paper, as they say, the decision made good sense. This person consistently exceeded performance goals, understood the business, worked as hard or harder than almost anyone else, and was widely respected by his peers.
But within eighteen months, it became clear that the promotion was not working. The new leader was overwhelmed in his role, and losing focus. On top of that, his team was frustrated, as were his peers. Even after leaders privately acknowledged the negative impact this decision was having, they kept this leader in his role for another year, with the hope that things might improve. But eventually, though a series of difficult organizational conversations and decisions, this leader was “let go.”
What made the situation particularly unfortunate was that this person had not suddenly become less talented or knowledgeable. The leaders responsible for the decision had simply confused high performance with executive readiness.
Most failed promotions do not occur because organizational leaders choose untalented people. It is more likely that they occur because the leaders making the decisions use the wrong criteria when identifying leadership potential.
The Five Warning Signs
Here are five warning signs to consider – signs that the leader you are considering may not be ready for an executive role.
1. The leader is overly focused on their own area of functionality.
One of the clearest indicators that a leader may not be ready for executive development is the inability to think beyond the boundaries of their own department.
Many successful managers become experts at optimizing local performance. They know how to improve operations, solve problems, and achieve results within their area of responsibility. But executive leaders must think differently. They need to balance competing priorities across the organization and understand how decisions in one area affect every other part of the business. Executive roles require leaders to move beyond functional expertise and adopt an enterprise-wide perspective (Charan, Drotter, & Noel, 2011).
Consider this question: When faced with a difficult decision, does this leader primarily advocate for their own department, or do they show they are thinking about what is best for the organization as a whole?
2. The leader fails to develop leadership in those around them.
The leaders who consistently deliver strong results deserve to be recognized for their efforts. These individuals are often highly intelligent, technically capable, and exceptionally good at solving problems. In many organizations, these qualities are rewarded early in a career because they produce visible results and help teams overcome obstacles quickly.
The challenge emerges as these leaders – who may have relied primarily on their own expertise and effort – move into executive-level roles in which success is measured through the leadership capacity they create in others. Leaders who always have the answers, make the key decisions, and solve the most important problems can unintentionally limit the growth of those around them. Team members may become dependent on the leader’s expertise rather than developing their own judgment and capability.
As a result, these leaders often position themselves at the center of every important decision, problem, and initiative. Their teams rely heavily on them for direction, and the leader’s direct reports fail to get the preparation needed to take on greater responsibility. The organization becomes dependent on a single individual rather than benefiting from a growing leadership bench.
In contrast, leaders with executive potential actively invest in the growth of others. They delegate meaningful responsibility, seek input from diverse perspectives, and create opportunities for emerging leaders to learn through experience. These leaders know that they must shift from deriving value primarily through their own expertise to creating value through the performance of others (Charan, Drotter, & Noel, 2011).
Consider this question: Does this leader primarily create results through their own expertise and effort, or are they developing other leaders who can succeed through their own abilities?
3. The leader avoids or dismisses critical feedback.
As leaders move into larger and more visible roles, their ability to learn from feedback becomes increasingly important. Technical expertise and strong performance can sometimes compensate for a lack of self-awareness early in a career, but that becomes far more difficult at senior levels of leadership.
Executive leadership places individuals under constant scrutiny. Their decisions affect more people, their relationships become more complex, and their stakeholders often have competing expectations. Leaders who respond to criticism with defensiveness, explanations, blame, or dismissal may find it difficult to adapt as circumstances change. Over time, these defensive behaviors diminish trust, and discourage others from sharing their concerns, raising risks, or offering alternative perspectives.
In contrast, leaders with executive potential tend to demonstrate curiosity about how others experience their leadership. No one enjoys hearing difficult feedback, but these leaders are always willing to consider it. They recognize that self-perception and stakeholder perception are not always the same, and they view feedback as information rather than a personal attack. As one study found, difficulties with interpersonal relationships, adaptability, and openness to feedback are common factors in leadership failure (McCall & Lombardo, 1983).
Consider this question: When this leader receives difficult feedback, do they become defensive and explain why others are wrong, or do they demonstrate genuine curiosity about what they can learn?
4. The leader relies to heavily on positional authority.
Many managers become successful because they have direct authority over a team, clear reporting relationships, and the ability to make decisions within their area of responsibility. When those structures are in place, compliance is often relatively easy to obtain.
Executive leadership is different. Senior leaders need to influence people they do not directly supervise, including peers, stakeholders, board members, customers, and cross-functional teams. Simply having authority does not guarantee commitment. In fact, some of the most important executive initiatives require leaders to gain buy-in from people who have little obligation to agree with them.
Leaders who depend too heavily on positional authority often struggle when they encounter resistance. They may become frustrated when others question their ideas, delay decisions, or fail to immediately support a proposed direction. As a result, they may resort to issuing directives rather than building understanding and alignment. While this approach can produce short-term compliance, it rarely generates the commitment necessary for sustained organizational change.
In contrast, leaders with executive potential understand the difference between authority and influence. They invest time in building relationships, understanding stakeholder concerns, and creating shared ownership of decisions. They recognize that people are more likely to support initiatives they help shape than those simply imposed upon them.
Question: When this leader encounters resistance, do they primarily rely on their position and authority to gain compliance, or do they possess the influence necessary to earn commitment and buy-in?
5. The Leader Wants the Promotion More Than the Responsibility
This may be the most difficult warning sign to recognize because ambition is often viewed as a positive leadership trait. Organizations generally want leaders who are motivated, engaged, and interested in advancing their careers. The challenge arises when a leader becomes more focused on obtaining the position than understanding the responsibilities that accompany it.
Executive leadership brings visibility, authority, and status. It also brings accountability, difficult decisions, competing stakeholder interests, organizational politics, and responsibility for outcomes that may be largely outside a leader’s direct control. Leaders who are attracted primarily to the title may underestimate the complexity and burden of the role itself.
This distinction often becomes apparent during conversations about leadership aspirations. Some individuals speak primarily about the authority, influence, compensation, or prestige associated with executive positions. Others focus on the opportunity to contribute to the organization’s future, develop other leaders, solve larger organizational challenges, and create long-term value. While both groups may be ambitious, their motivations are fundamentally different.
Leaders with executive potential tend to view leadership as stewardship rather than status. They recognize that higher-level leadership is not simply about gaining authority; it is about accepting greater responsibility for the success of the organization and the people within it. Successful executives increasingly shift their focus from personal achievement toward broader organizational outcomes and long-term enterprise success (Charan, Drotter, & Noel, 2011).
The irony is that some of the strongest executive candidates are not the people most aggressively pursuing the role. They often have a healthy appreciation for the sacrifices, tradeoffs, and responsibilities that accompany senior leadership. They understand that executive leadership is not a reward for past success. It is a commitment to serving the future needs of the organization.
Question: When this leader talks about advancement, do they focus primarily on the title and authority of the position, or do they demonstrate an understanding of the broader responsibility that comes with leading the organization into the future?
The Hard Lesson of Missing the Warnings
None of these warning signs make someone a bad employee. In fact, many of these individuals are among the strongest performers in the organization. The danger is assuming that success in one role automatically predicts success in another.
But it’s important to remember: Executive development is expensive.
Every hour of coaching, every developmental assignment, every succession discussion, and every promotion decision represents an investment in the future leadership capacity of the organization. Before asking who deserves the next opportunity, organizational leaders should ask a different question:
Are we developing the people who will help this organization succeed five years from now?
Or are we rewarding the people who helped us succeed yesterday?
Sources:
Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2011). The Leadership Pipeline: How to Build the Leadership Powered Company (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
McCall, M. W., Jr., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off the Track: Why and How Successful Executives Get Derailed. Center for Creative Leadership.