Are we confusing capability with leadership readiness?

They're Great at Their Job! Let's Make Them a Team Leader!

A brilliant idea, but also a recipe for disaster, when it is not executed properly.

I see this happen all the time.

Someone is technically brilliant, consistently delivers great results, knows the job inside out, and is respected by their peers.

Or perhaps they've been with the company for so long that a promotion is seen as the natural next step. Longevity often gets mistaken for leadership readiness, but that's a topic for another article.

In either case, the assumption is the same.They're successful in their current role, so they'll be successful leading others.

The natural next step, in the eyes of their manager?

Promote them into a leadership role, they will be fantastic!

In certain situations, like promotion, we need to challenge and encourage people to grow and develop, I am all for that. But, before we do that, there is one question to be asked first.

Have we actually asked them if they want to lead people?

In many businesses, leadership is viewed as the reward for being good at your job. It's often the only visible pathway for career progression. The problem is that technical excellence and leadership capability are two very different skill sets.

Being a great technician doesn't automatically make someone a great leader.

Leadership requires a completely different focus. Instead of solving the problems yourself, you're developing others to solve them. Instead of concentrating on your own performance, you're responsible for creating an environment where others can perform. You need to communicate effectively, coach, influence, manage conflict, hold people accountable, and navigate difficult conversations.

Not everyone wants that responsibility.

Some people genuinely thrive in specialist roles. They love being the expert, the problem solver, the person who gets things done. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, many businesses need strong technical experts just as much as they need strong leaders.

When we promote someone purely because they're good at their job, we risk creating several problems:

• We lose an exceptional performer in the role they excelled at.
• We place them into a role they may not enjoy.
• Their confidence can take a hit when leadership challenges emerge.
• Team performance may suffer under inexperienced leadership.
• Frustration grows for everyone involved.

I've seen talented people go from being highly engaged and successful to stressed, overwhelmed, and questioning their abilities, not because they weren't capable, but because they were placed in a role that didn't align with their strengths or aspirations.

Before promoting someone into leadership, consider asking a few important questions.

• Do they actually want to lead people?
• What motivates them in their work?
• Have they demonstrated leadership behaviours, not just technical capability?
• What support and development will they need to succeed?
• Are there alternative growth pathways available?

Leadership should be a choice, not an assumption.

The best organisations create multiple pathways for success. They recognise and reward technical expertise while also developing those who genuinely aspire to lead. They understand that career progression doesn't always have to mean managing people.

The result?

Stronger leaders. Happier employees. Better performance.

Sometimes, when you pause and think about it, the best thing you can do for a high performer isn't to promote them into leadership.

It's to actually help them become even better at what they already do brilliantly.