Leadership pipelines

Do the best salespeople make the best sales managers? Do the best treasurers make the best CFOs? The answer in each case is, 'no'. Yet, in many companies, we act as if the answer were 'yes'. That is, we begin to build our leadership pipeline by acting as if current performance of an individual contributor (eg, sales person, engineer, and operator) is the best and sometimes only criteria for promotion to manager (eg, sales manager, engineering manager, and operations supervisor). It is difficult to build a robust leadership pipeline throughout the organisation from the bottom to the top if the wellhead or the beginning of that pipeline is not primed with the right quality of people. 

 Fundamentally, we have to ensure that when we make this first leadership transition from individual contributor to manager of individual contributors that the right people are selected and developed.

Individual contributors vs managers 

Most managers recognise that performance at one level does not guarantee performance at another; yet, in the majority of organisations, performance has become the de facto proxy for potential success as a manager. Nearly two out of three managers report that they do not know how they are being evaluated for promotions to the next level other than current performance results. If managers do not know how they are being evaluated, how can they purposefully or proactively work on developing the skills and capabilities required to succeed to the next managerial level? 

To answer this question, consider the differences between individual contributors and managers.

The transition from individual contributor to manager is about the difference in the kind of work, not just the degree of work.

Making the transition from individual contributor to manager

The transition from individual contributor to manager is the most important but also the most difficult for two reasons. First, as previously mentioned, this transition is the wellhead of the leadership pipeline so if the flow does not begin well here, then there is a ripple effect throughout the organisation over time.

Secondly, the vast majority of employees report to managers of individual contributors, so if the organisation mismanages developing first-line managers, the consequences reverberate through the highest proportion of the company's employees. While this represents the most crucial transition for both the company and its employees, it is often not fully recognised or valued because it is the most junior. If the transition from individual contributor to manager is the most important, why does it not happen successfully? There are three hurdles to making the transition: ignorance, success, and mistrust.

Hurdle one: ignorance

Because of the general belief that promotion is based on performance results, most productive individual contributors are too busy to reflect upon what is required for a successful transition to the next level. This tendency is amplified by organisations that often do not specify the key criteria for the transition - often because the organisations have not thought about what it takes to succeed either. Many managers think, 'If they can't figure it out, they don't deserve to be promoted.' This often happens because the managers themselves did not have a clear understanding of why they were promoted. It is very dangerous to remain ignorant in light of the current war for talent, especially in Asian countries like China, India, and Vietnam, because one of the biggest reasons people leave their company is the lack of a clear career development path or plan.

Hurdle two: success

Even if an employee gets past the first hurdle and sees the need to behave differently as a manager, the success of the past can lead to failure in the future. Why? As individual contributors, people get results by doing things. In fact, the better they are at this, the more likely is a promotion to manager. However, even if an employee knows that instead of doing things themselves they need to achieve results by delegating, new managers are often not so good at this and prefer to get results by still doing things themselves. Consequently, when the pressure is on, it is very tempting and easy to revert to the old and successful pattern. Many new managers would rather be competent at the wrong thing than incompetent at the right thing.

Hurdle three: mistrust

On average, 63% of employees say that they are not being allowed to use their full range of capabilities or judgment because they are not fully trusted by their superiors. When individual contributors who have worked in an environment with some degree of mistrust are then promoted to manager, we should not be surprised when they exhibit a similar level of mistrust. People generally model the example that has been put in front of them.
Hurdles two and three then become a powerful force. New managers may think, "I'm not sure I can trust people to do what needs to be done in the right way and in the right time, and I know I'm capable of doing it myself." In combination, these two thoughts make it almost irresistibly tempting to do things oneself rather than empower others.

Clearing the hurdles

Clearing these hurdles is difficult but not impossible. First, companies need to send clear signals concerning the criteria for promotion; otherwise employees do not know how to act. Second, companies need to assess and test their people before the promotion to manager. For example, make an individual contributor the lead on a project and see how he or she performs. By giving individual contributors new challenges, a company can get a better idea of whether or not the individual contributor has raw talent to be an effective manager. Third, because people often become defensive when confronted directly with imperfections, it is often more effective to have people look at their own struggles in someone else; give new managers a simple case study of someone else stumbling through the same transition. 

Success to failure

Although it may seem paradoxical, ultimate success as a new manager first requires some allowance for failure. No one is instantly good at something new and increasing managerial proficiency comes through successive failures. People need to be allowed to fail in small ways early in the managerial development process or there is just too much pressure to abandon the learning curve they are on (ie, the 'getting it done through others' or managerial curve) and revert to the learning curve they have already mastered (ie, the 'doing it themselves' or individual contributor curve). Organisations need to create a learning environment where failure is acceptable and even encouraged in the initial stages of learning to lead.

Mistrust to confidence

In order to leap over the hurdle of mistrust, new managers need to develop confidence in themselves and their ability to lead others (not just lead themselves). This does not require learning everything there is to know about leading others. Rather it requires understanding and mastering the fundamentals, just as in music or sports. For new managers, four roles represent 20% of leadership roles that account for 80% of getting results through others. These include the following:

· Director: establish and get commitment for direction and targets
· Enabler: provide resources for and remove obstacles from performance
· Motivator: keep people engaged and energised about the right things
· Coach: deliver candid feedback, correction, and praise

Making wise investments

What else can companies do to ensure that their new managers not only clear the hurdles but also continue the race? First, set clear criteria for managerial performance, not just operational results. Second, assess managerial performance as well as operational results. Third, give candid feedback about managerial performance. Although education, training, and development are only part of the process in helping new managers learn to lead, there are keys to making these activities more effective. There are three stages in successful leadership development programs:
 
1. Pre-program: New managers should think about and write down their objectives for the development experience, which should be influenced in part by consultation with their bosses as well as input from peers and/or subordinates
2. During program: Because effective management is rooted in behaviours, programs designed to help new managers learn to lead should be as experiential as possible. To ensure that the momentum of change is continued after the program, new managers should create personal action plans before they leave the program to implement once they are back at work
3. Post-program: Finally, to ensure that there is follow through, there needs to be follow up. New managers should follow up with their bosses as well as with trusted peers or confidantes

In today's environment of intense competition for customers and for talent, no organisation can afford not to have a strong leadership pipeline. As a consequence, though CEOs and other senior leaders seem to garner most if not all the media attention, it is the newly minted or about to be made managers that are the ultimate source of how thin or robust the leadership pipeline will or won't be. It is this segment of managers that should capture the lion's share of a company's time, attention, and investment.

Stewart Black is Professor of Organisational Behaviour, executive director INSEAD Center for Human Resources in Asia, and program director for Learning to Lead and Leading for Results programs