Leading vs. contributing

One of the biggest traps in leadership is assuming that just because you enjoy leading, the people working under you will want to as well. Leadership and contribution are two different roles, each with its own challenges, rewards, and suitability for different personality types.

Generally speaking, about 60% of people prefer to work in environments where the rules for success are well defined. They thrive in structured systems where expectations are clear, and they can focus on executing within those parameters. Only around 30% of people, on the other hand, are truly suited for leadership roles, which require them to “eat the sin” on behalf of the team, taking ownership of failures and guiding the team through difficult moments.

An anti-pattern I’ve often seen is when leaders, without realizing it, promote from within by elevating contributors who help them realize their vision into leadership roles when they step away. This often happens without considering if those individuals actually want the role or if they are suited for it. When this occurs, someone who was previously excelling in their area of expertise may suddenly find themselves overwhelmed or unhappy, simply because they were pushed into a role they neither desired nor were trained for.

Compensation structures that reward management over contribution can exacerbate this issue. It’s important to be aware that many technical or individual contributors don’t aspire to manage people, often, they prefer to stay focused on their craft. It may seem like common sense, but it bears repeating: not everyone who excels in their domain wants to be a leader. As a leader yourself, you need to be mindful of this distinction and ensure that the roles you’re offering align with what your people truly want.