Why Great Individual Contributors Don’t Always Make Great Leaders

Leadership continues to be one of the greatest challenges as our world of work evolves. I work in this space every day, having some really great conversations about leadership – what it is and what it isn’t….and naturally it various by individual.

In organisations around the world, high performing individual contributors are often fast-tracked into leadership roles. The logic seems straightforward: if someone excels in their job, surely they’ll excel at leading others. Yet, research and real-world experience show this assumption is flawed. While some exceptional contributors do become strong leaders, most don’t, and the reasons go far beyond mere technical ability. Forbes+1

At the heart of the problem is a mismatch between the skill sets required for individual contribution and those required for leadership. Top individual performers typically succeed because of their deep expertise, ability to execute tasks efficiently, and strong focus on results. These skills, while valuable, don’t necessarily prepare a person to inspire, develop, and manage a team. Leadership is fundamentally relational and strategic; it’s less about doing the work and more about connecting and enabling others to do it well.

One of the key challenges is interpersonal skills. Leaders must communicate clearly, build trust, resolve conflicts, manage resources and motivate diverse personalities. Exceptional individual contributors, by contrast, often thrive on technical mastery and independent problem-solving rather than on managing people dynamics. Without strong emotional intelligence the ability to understand and respond to others’ feelings and perspectives new leaders can struggle to connect with their teams, leading to misunderstandings, disengagement, and turnover.

Another common pitfall is difficulty with delegation. High performers are used to controlling their work to ensure quality and efficiency. When moved into leadership roles, they may continue to take on tasks themselves rather than trusting others with important responsibilities. This behaviour sometimes disguised as “leading by example” can quickly turn into micromanagement. It stifles team autonomy and growth, overloads the new leader, and ultimately diminishes team performance.

The underlying tension here highlights a deeper cognitive shift that many promoted contributors fail to make: moving from doing to enabling. Whereas individual success is measured by personal output and technical problem-solving, leadership success is measured by the collective achievement of the team. This shift demands strategic thinking, a broader organisational perspective, and the ability to create clarity and alignment around shared goals. It’s a leap that not all high performers are prepared for, or, even interested in making. It requires a shift in what we value.

I reference the The Peter Principle – the idea that people rise to their “level of incompetence”. When promotion is based primarily on past performance, organisations risk placing people in roles where the competencies needed are substantially different from those they developed as individual contributors. This mismatch can degrade both the performance of the new leader and the effectiveness of the team they lead.

It’s also important to recognise that not all individual contributors want to be leaders, and forcing this pathway can be counterproductive. Many top performers find deep satisfaction and value in mastering their craft, and they may not have the personal motivations for people leadership such as helping others grow, coaching through challenges, or serving as a team steward. Ignoring these preferences can lead to disengagement.

We all know that the technical to leader transition is one of the hardest career transitions. Some make it, others don’t. So, what can individuals and organisations do?