A highly intelligent engineer works at a company. He is always able to solve complex technical problems. Elsewhere, there is a sales employee who frequently exceeds his targets. There is also an accountant who has a deep understanding of the ins and outs of accounting and finance.
No one would dare to question the contributions of the engineer, salesperson, and accountant mentioned above. When it comes to performance evaluations, there’s no need to ask about the results.
Thanks to their outstanding performance, they were promoted to managers. As a result, the engineer had to lead colleagues who had previously held positions of equal rank. Sales employees must resolve conflicts and motivate team members with diverse personalities. Meanwhile, the accountant must resolve conflicts, delegate responsibilities, and mentor subordinates. The work that once earned them praise is no longer their primary responsibility. They no longer solve problems on their own but must empower others to solve them.
A few months later, the results fell short of expectations. The team became frustrated, decision-making ground to a halt, and some of the organization’s best contributors actually struggled to adapt to their new roles.
What exactly is the problem? Is the promotion misguided, or has the organization failed to prepare its employees to take on greater responsibilities? This dilemma reflects a long-standing challenge in human resources management: the assumption that individuals who excel in their roles will automatically make good leaders.
The Paradox of Promotion
In many organizations, promotions are viewed as a reward for past achievements. Employees with the most outstanding performance are considered the most deserving of a promotion. This way of thinking seems reasonable. If someone excels at their job, why wouldn’t they excel at a higher level?
The problem is, a managerial position isn’t simply a higher-level version of a specialist role. That role demands different skills. A great programmer produces high-quality code. A competent technical manager ensures that their team produces reliable products, manages resources, sets priorities, and mentors their subordinates. The former relies on personal expertise; the latter relies on the ability to drive team performance. This difference is fundamental. Moving from expert to manager is not just a change in title, but a change in the very nature of the work.
Laurence J. Peter’s Peter Principle can help us understand this phenomenon. The principle states that in hierarchical organizations, employees tend to be promoted based on their competence in their current positions until they reach a position they are no longer capable of handling.
Although this is often presented in a lighthearted manner, the implications are serious. Organizations may continue to reward technical excellence by promoting people to positions that require managerial skills they have never demonstrated. The result is a double loss: the company loses a productive expert and, at the same time, risks ending up with an ineffective manager.
Being an Expert Isn’t Enough
The transition from specialist to manager isn’t just about learning new procedures; it requires a shift in perspective. First, an expert is valued for being able to provide solutions. A manager, on the other hand, must create situations where others can find solutions. A highly capable specialist may become impatient when subordinates work more slowly or are less thorough. Instead of guiding them, the specialist takes over. Instead of delegating, the specialist takes control.
Second, before being promoted, a person is responsible only for their own work. They do not need to concern themselves with the results of others’ work. However, once in a managerial position, they are responsible for the performance of others. Therefore, they need to set expectations, provide feedback, address poor performance, and manage interpersonal conflicts. Responsibilities like these can feel uncomfortable for people whose professional identity is built on technical competence.
Third, specific technical expertise can create the illusion that a person is also competent in other areas. A successful salesperson might assume that the ability to persuade customers automatically translates to the ability to mentor employees. A respected financial analyst might assume that analytical rigor alone is sufficient to make strategic decisions.
In fact, leadership means dealing with uncertainty, possessing high emotional intelligence, being a reliable communicator, and being able to influence people who may not necessarily share the same knowledge or priorities.
None of this means that experts cannot be great leaders. It simply means that technical competence demonstrates readiness for a specialist role, not absolute readiness for a managerial role.
Organizational Pitfalls: Promotion as the Only Reward
Why does this practice persist even though many people understand its consequences?
One reason is the limited career paths in many companies. Advancement is always associated with larger teams, higher positions, and broader authority.
Employees who seek compensation, recognition, or professional status feel that becoming a manager is their only option.
As a result, an expert accepts a promotion not because they want to lead people, but because turning it down would be seen as rejecting career advancement.
Organizations also face a dilemma. There is a perception that promoting high-performing internal employees seems safer than hiring from outside. These candidates already understand the business, the products, and internal processes. However, familiarity with the organization does not bridge the gap between the ability to contribute as an individual and the ability to lead others.
Assessment: Identifying Potential Before Promotion
This is where talent assessment should play a more strategic role. Through assessment, the abilities and motivation needed to succeed in the role to be filled can be identified and evaluated.
A robust assessment begins with an understanding of what managerial success means. The required competencies may include delegation, communication, coaching, conflict management, decision-making, adaptability, and the ability to develop others.
However, assessments alone will not solve the problem if the organization continues to view the managerial track as the only path to advancement.
Companies need two credible career paths: one for those who want to lead teams, and another for those who want to deepen their professional expertise. Lead engineers, senior scientists, master craftsmen, or leading technical specialists should be able to earn recognition, influence, and competitive compensation without having to hold managerial positions.
For employees who genuinely aspire to become managers or leaders, organizations can provide a gradual transition. Temporary assignments, project leadership, mentoring responsibilities, and cross-functional initiatives offer opportunities to test managerial skills before a permanent appointment. The success of such appointments should be evaluated not only based on business results but also on team performance, employee development, engagement, and retention.
Ultimately, the question isn’t whether experts can become leaders. Many great leaders began their careers as specialists. The question is whether organizations can distinguish between what employees have already accomplished and what their next role will require of them.
Promotions should benefit both individuals and organizations. If an expert truly wants to lead, demonstrate relevant potential, and gain the necessary support, this can result in exceptional contributions. However, if promotions are driven primarily by past performance, status, or the lack of other career paths, the impact can be detrimental to both the individual and the team.
# promotion # the promotion paradox #Peter Principle #responsibility # illusion # leadership # limited career paths # dilemma #assessment
