"We live in a culture that glorifies leadership. Titles like manager, director, or CEO are treated not just as jobs, but as glamorous career destinations (even when the actual job is anything but). In the corporate world, ambition and talent are often defined by how many people report to you, and the ladder of success is measured by headcount under your name."
"You can be the most talented coder, designer, analyst, or scientist, but sooner or later the corporate current will push you toward leading others. It is the professional equivalent of a rite of passage: You can only go so far unless you manage people. This obsession with leadership explains why nearly everyone wants to be one, and why admitting that you don't may get interviewers and recruiters to label you as "unambitious.""
"The fact of the matter is, that the number of people aspiring to lead far exceeds the number of people who can actually lead, especially if we measure leadership talent not by the ability to get the job but actually having a positive impact on your team and organization after you do (yes, this applies to politics, too). Data from organizational psychology is sobering: Most people are not competent leaders."
Leadership is glorified and treated as a career destination, with titles like manager, director, and CEO seen as markers of success. Corporate ambition and talent are often measured by headcount and reporting lines. Many individual contributors are pushed toward people management as a professional rite of passage, and declining leadership roles can be labeled as unambitious. The number of aspirants exceeds the number of competent leaders. Organizational psychology shows many leaders are ineffective, with 50–60% seen as such and managers being a primary source of employee dissatisfaction. Leadership aptitude is often misjudged, but scientific markers can assess leadership potential.
Read at Fast Company
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]