The Development Mistake Organizations Make With High Performers

One of my most memorable coaching conversations was with a brilliant analytical leader who was becoming increasingly frustrated with his organization's plans for his future.

The company wanted to promote him into management.

He had a different idea.

"If they really want to keep me," he told me, "they should pay for my PhD."

He already had two mathematics degrees. What he wanted was a third. What he didn't want was to manage people.

His organization interpreted his performance - and his people skills - as evidence that he should move into leadership. He understood his performance as evidence that he had found the kind of work he loved and excelled at.

Neither perspective was inaccurate. But they weren't the same.

Organizations often make an assumption that goes largely unchallenged: if someone is one of the strongest performers, the next step should be a larger role, greater responsibility, and eventually leadership. The adjacent assumption being that “upward” is what everyone wants.

And that's where the development mistake begins - rooted in assumptions rather than in real, curiosity-based inquiry.

We assume that growth always means moving up

High performers attract attention.

They're productive, reliable, capable, and often deeply knowledgeable. They're the people others depend on. They solve difficult problems. They consistently deliver results.

Naturally, organizations want to invest in them, with the intent of keeping them.

But before creating a development plan, identifying them as high potential, or discussing succession, I think there is a more important question to ask:

Do they actually want the next role?

That sounds obvious, but I don't think organizations ask it nearly often enough.

And even when they do, they don't always help people understand what they're actually saying yes to.

The next-level role may be a completely different job

Promotions are often presented as a continuation of someone's career.

In reality, they can represent a complete departure from it. Pretty often, in fact.

The expert becomes a people leader, the technical specialist spends less time applying technical expertise.

The brilliant sales person sees fewer customers as they manage sales teams, the exceptional individual contributor becomes responsible for developing other people.

The person who built a career on producing great work becomes accountable for creating the conditions that allow other people to produce great work.

The work changes, the daily experience changes, and the sources of satisfaction change.

And the very things that made the work enjoyable in the first place begin to disappear.

I've worked with many leaders who were excited by that transition - who understood what they were saying yes to and who were genuinely keen to grow in that new direction.

I've also worked with leaders who, after taking a clear and honest look at what the next role actually involved, politely declined.

Not because they lacked ambition or capability, or even confidence.

Simply because they preferred the work they were already doing.

Organizations need to leave room for that answer.

Success creates evidence

There's another reason development becomes more complicated for high performers.

Success creates evidence.

Every promotion, positive performance review, challenging project, and senior leader endorsement reinforces a message:

This is what works.

And usually, it is.

High performers have often been rewarded repeatedly for particular strengths and behaviours.

They may be highly analytical.

Exceptionally decisive.

Deeply knowledgeable.

Incredibly responsive.

Extraordinarily good at solving problems.

Over time, those strengths become more than professional capabilities. They become part of how people understand their value.

Then we ask them to step into a role that may require something completely different.

The expert needs to lead beyond their own expertise.

The problem solver needs to stop solving every problem and empower others to offer their own solutions.

The person known for having the answers needs to become better at asking questions.

The high performer who built a reputation through personal contribution needs to create results increasingly through other people.

That transition is much more significant than simply learning a few new skills.

Development should be a conversation, not a prescription

Too many development conversations focus exclusively on capability.

Can this person do the next job?

That's important, obviously. Necessary but not sufficient.

Two additional questions are equally important.

Do they fully understand what the next job will require them to stop doing?

And WITH that understanding, do they want that next job?

Development shouldn't become a mechanism for moving talented people into roles that don't align with their strengths, interests, or aspirations.

Sometimes development means preparing someone for greater leadership responsibility.

Sometimes it means helping them deepen their expertise.

Sometimes it means helping them recognize that a role they once assumed they wanted no longer reflects the kind of work that gives them energy and purpose.

There should be more than one definition of growth.

Your strongest performers are too valuable to lose because the only development path you offered them was a promotion they never wanted in the first place.