The Insider Guide to Careers
Insider information, secrets and tips about getting hired and building careers. For employees and job candidates.
I have seen many employees who are very successful in junior-level roles but turn out to be terrible managers. A classic example is that of software engineers who turn out to be ineffective people leaders. Employees get blamed for not having the right people, communication, leadership, and resource management skills to survive in leadership roles. Skill evaluation in companies can often be confusing. This aspect is a giant problem – a gorilla in the room and something employees rarely discuss.
When employees are in junior roles, whether analysts in a consulting company or entry-level software engineers, they are expected to do whatever is told to them by their manager. The focus is on execution. The ability to obey and execute orders diligently makes employees stand out at this phase. Most junior-level employees have little say over the business’s direction or individual projects. Strategic thinking, the ability to challenge authority, and other leadership traits are discouraged and frowned upon. Employees who take time to accomplish their tasks are considered a liability and a misfit. Those who seek feedback from multiple stakeholders are called indecisive. Those who question their managers are considered insubordinate, and the manager is ready to push such employees out in the next performance cycle.
On the other hand, as the individual contributors become managers, things mostly stay the same. Entry-level managers and senior managers are also not in charge of developing strategy. They are also in execution mode and perpetually dancing to the whims of the Vice Presidents (VPs) and the Senior Directors. Managers think they are leading and that leadership skills are required to thrive in their position, but what matters at their level is pure execution skills. They need to be able to work on many projects simultaneously, work in ambiguity, and sometimes even be a scapegoat when projects turn awry.
The authority to influence business direction frankly starts at the level of a Director. The Directors and Senior Directors are in a sandwiched position where they are in charge of implementation and contributing to the business strategy. Here there are hybrid skills required.
Vice Presidents are in the position where true responsibility begins; they are in charge of the Profit and Loss for their business division. They make the most critical business decisions. Critics can argue that VPs are subservient to the CEO, Executive VPs, and Senior VPs, but still, VPs handle the teams with an authority nobody else has. VPs need to supervise and not micromanage. The management work is left to the Directors and Senior Managers. Those leaders who make decisions gradually are called practical and logical. The VPs can afford to work on one project at a time, a luxury that junior employees do not get. Those leaders who are quick to execute are termed unidimensional and despised by other leaders.
The paradox is that the same qualities which benefited an employee early in their career to execute fast get them promoted more quickly to a role where these qualities can be a liability. Likewise, qualities and skills that can be a liability to employees early in their careers can be a blessing later in senior management positions. This discrepancy is the reason why most promotions are ineffective. For a person to be successful in the new role, they have to unlearn everything from their previous jobs and begin anew.
It is also not easy for people to become the complete opposite of themselves as they move from junior to senior roles within the company. Weaknesses cannot become strengths overnight. Even after lots of effort, weaknesses can be minimized, but they can rarely be mastered. Most Vice Presidents and above have executive coaches, mentors, and consultants helping them navigate this tricky terrain of promotions. The more companies invest in talent for the long term by promoting people, even if they are not the best match for the immediate next job, this issue will be resolved.
Unfortunately, most leaders do not plan too far ahead into the future. They do not invest in placing long-term bets on employees. Part of the reason is that there is little employee loyalty, and employees switch jobs whenever possible. This employee reaction emerged because employers wanted the ability to fire people whenever desired. Companies in Japan and South Korea follow a completely different model, where many conglomerates offer jobs for life with no threat of getting fired. These companies have been able to get the best out of their employees and invest in talent long-term. This model is something that most MNCs should begin to take seriously.
For more such articles, also follow my Substack and Careerbolt channels.
