Key Contributors to Career Derailment for Both Mid-Level Leaders and Senior Executives

The Research

Recently, Assessments International completed two research studies using databases of 6,245 leaders who completed our PROFILOR® for Mid-Level Leaders (find this research summary here) and 1,555 leaders who completed our PROFILOR® for Senior Executives (find this research summary here). We asked the same questions for the analyses conducted with the two databases. One of the questions we asked was: 

-    What competencies are most related to the likelihood of derailing in one’s career? 

For both Mid-Level Leaders and Senior Executives, their Primary Managers were asked to assess an individual’s risk of experiencing career difficulty due to factors under their personal control on the following scale: Very High Risk, High Risk, Moderate Risk, Slight Risk, Little to No Risk. Correlations between competency ratings and assessments of career difficulty were available for 1414 – 1556 leaders, depending on the competency, for Mid-Level Leaders and for 225-358 leaders, depending on the competency, for Senior Executives. 

For Mid-Level Leaders, the competencies most related to career difficulty assessments were (career difficulty ratings were reverse scored): Foster Open Communication (-490), Build Support (-.487), and Show Adaptability (-.476). (Note: Career difficulty ratings were reverse scored. Thus, negative correlations mean that higher scores in a competency were related to less likelihood of derailing; lower scores in a competency were related to more likelihood of derailing.) These competency definitions are shown below: 

• Foster Open Communication – Keeps people up-to-date with information; listens attentively and with empathy to concerns expressed by others; encourages others to express their views, even contrary ones; speaks clearly and concisely
• Build Support – Gives compelling reasons for ideas; anticipates and responds effectively to the positions and reactions of others; builds support for own ideas through contacts with others; knows which battles are worth fighting
• Show Adaptability – Responds resourcefully to new demands and challenges; works effectively in ambiguous situations; adapts behavior in response to feedback and experience; deals constructively with own failures and mistakes

For Senior Executives, the competencies most related to career difficulty assessments were (career difficulty ratings were reverse scored): Ensure Collaboration (-.469), Build Organizational Relationships (-.440), and Earn Unwavering Trust (-.410). These competency definitions are shown below: 

• Ensure Collaboration – Creates an environment that facilitates input and ideas from others; fosters collaboration across the organization; removes barriers to collaboration and teamwork; anticipates and works to resolve potential or emerging conflicts
• Build Organizational Relationships – Cultivates an active network of relationships inside and outside the organization; relates well to key colleagues (e.g., bosses, peers, direct reports); manages differences with diplomacy
• Earn Unwavering Trust – Treats all individuals fairly and with respect; behaves in accord with expressed beliefs and commitments; maintains high ethical standards and integrity

The table below shows the top six correlations between the competencies and assessments of career difficulty, from highest to lowest, for both Mid-Level Leaders and Senior Executives. It also shows the “Super Factor” for each competency. Both the Mid-Level Leader and Senior Executive competency models are organized into the same four super-factors: Thought Leadership, Results Leadership, People Leadership, and Personal Leadership. 

These results reveal that it is weakness in Personal Leadership competencies and People Leadership competencies that is most related to a person’s likelihood of derailing in their career, regardless of whether a person is a Mid-Level Leader or a Senior Executive. 

Not only this, but it is almost the exact same competencies (titled and defined slightly differently for Mid-Level Leader and Senior Executives) that are most related to a person’s likelihood of derailing in their career. For example, Build Support and Use Organizational Influence are considered the “Influence” competencies in the two models. Show Adaptability and Demonstrate Agility are considered the “Adaptability” competencies. Therefore, in general terms, whether a Mid-Level Leader or a Senior Executive, weaknesses in Influence, Adaptability, Collaboration, Build Relationships, and Establish Trust are most related to likelihood of career difficulty. For Mid-Level Leaders, Communication (Foster Open Communication) is added to this list; for Senior Executives, Develop Others (Develop Organizational Talent) is added to this list.

The table below shows all of the People Leadership and Personal Leadership competencies in the overarching Leadership Competency Architecture for The PROFILOR®. Those highlighted in yellow are the competencies for which weaknesses are most related to likelihood of derailing. It is compelling that weaknesses in both Personal Leadership competencies are related to likelihood of derailing regardless of level. Weaknesses in three of six People Leadership competencies are related to likelihood of derailing regardless of level. There is one distinction between levels related to the People Leadership competencies. Senior Executives who aren’t developing talent are more likely to derail. Mid-Level Leaders who aren’t communicating well are more likely to derail. 

Relation to Previous Research 

Identifying that there is a link between weakness in People Leadership and Personal Leadership competencies and risk of derailing is not new. This link was identified in research conducted by the original developers of The PROFILOR®, Personnel Decisions International (PDI) in the late 1900s. David Peterson, who was an SVP at PDI and head of their coaching practice, was noted in a March 10, 2014 Inc. article as saying that he often sees people promoted early in their career for getting good results because they’re smart. Yet, any individual at a certain level who’s smart can do a great job. Peterson continued: “It’s when leaders begin to ascend the higher rungs of the career ladder that the potential for derailment appears. Then it’s not so much the ability to get results that’s most important; it’s working well with others–being able to incite performance in direct reports and teams–that becomes most important.”

Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) began looking at derailment in the 1980s. McCall and Lombardo (1983) pointed out that the “most frequent cause for derailment was insensitivity to others. Under stress, the derailed managers became abrasive and intimidating.” Every derailed manager in this study had relationship problems, reported Morrison, White, & Van Velsor (1987). 

In an article titled A Look at Derailment Today: North America and Europe (1996), CCL identified the top two derailment factors for North Americans and Europeans. As in previous CCL studies of derailment, poor working relationships continued to top the list of reasons for derailment. Poor working relationships were characterized in this research as difficulty with communicating, listening, trustworthiness, and being a team player.

In addition, the inability to develop or adapt was also a top reason for derailment. The inability to develop or adapt included things like the ability to change management style, seeming stubborn or resistant to a point where a person couldn’t change, having a rigid and outdated management style, and being inflexible to the point where people tired of it. 

In more recent CCL research, Gentry and colleagues showed how relationship problems, leadership problems, and failure to adapt lead to the derailment of middle managers (Gentry, Hannum, Ekelund, & de Jong, 2007), university administrators (Gentry, Katz, & McFeeters, in press), managers of Hispanic descent (Gentry, Braddy, Fleenor, & Howard, 2008), and managers throughout the European Union (Gentry, Hannum, et al., 2007). They also showed that coworker ratings of self-awareness predict risk for derailment (Gentry et al., in press) and getting fired up to five years later (Gentry et al., 2007).

In a paper titled Management Derailment: Personality Assessment and Mitigation published by Hogan Assessments, the authors summarized the review of the research on derailment as follows: “Study after study finds that a lack of self-awareness, relationship problems, poor leadership, bad business decisions, and trouble adapting to change predict failure. The relative importance of these themes differs somewhat from context to context (e.g., across cultures, women versus men).”

Summary

In summary, even over 40 years after the initial research on derailment was conducted, the themes are the same. Individuals who can’t adapt or have trouble with interpersonal relationships (don’t communicate, collaborate, build relationships and trust, and influence and develop others) are those most likely to derail. 

For organizations with managers who may be on a path to derailment, and for these managers themselves, it is worth exploring potential causes of difficulties with interpersonal relationships and adaptability. It is also important to identify how to reverse a trend for a person who may be on the path to derailment. 

A future article will focus on these topics. 

References
Gentry, W. A., Hannum, K. M., Ekelund, B., Z., & de Jong, A. (2007). A study of the discrepancy between self- and observer-ratings on managerial derailment characteristics of European managers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 295-325. 
Gentry, W. A., Katz, R. B., & McFeeters, B. (2009). The continual need for improvement to avoid derailment: A study of college and university administrators. Higher Education Research and Development, 28(3), 335 – 348.
Gentry, W. A., Braddy, P. W., Fleenor, J. W., & Howard, P. J. (2008). Self-observer rating discrepancies on the derailment behaviors of Hispanic managers. The Business Journal of Hispanic Research, 2(1), 76-87. 
Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R.B. (year unspecified) Management Derailment: Personality Assessment and Mitigation. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessments.
Leslie, J.B. & Van Velsor, E. (1996). A Look at Derailment Today: North America and Europe Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. 
McCall, M. W., Jr., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful executives get derailed. Technical Report No. 21. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Morrison, A. M., White, R. P., & Van Velsor, E. (1987). Breaking the glass ceiling: Can women reach the top of America’s largest corporations?. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.