Organizations that promote top players end up breaking their managers.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Have you ever wondered, "Why them?"
A top-performing player was promoted to a management position.
To the organization, it seemed like a natural personnel decision.
However, six months later, the team is not running smoothly.
Subordinates are not developing.
The numbers are stagnating.
The person themselves clearly looks distressed.
“They were so talented, so why are they struggling as soon as they became a manager?”
Many organizations dismiss this as a matter of individual aptitude.
“That person wasn't cut out for management.”
“Player and manager are different talents, so it can't be helped.”
That is half right and half wrong.
The problem is not just individual aptitude.
It is that the organization is incorrectly connecting “being an excellent player” with “being suited for management.”
Organizations that repeat this misconnection, every time they promote a top player, mass-produce not excellent managers, but dysfunctional ones.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Conclusion: The promotion criteria remain based on the “player evaluation function”
Let me state the conclusion first.
The root cause of why managers break when top players are promoted is that the promotion criteria are still designed based on the player evaluation function.
The player evaluation function is “how much results did I produce?”
The manager evaluation function is “how much results did the team produce?”
These two require completely different abilities.
The ability to produce results as a player and the ability to make a team produce results have a low correlation.
In fact, there are many cases where the more excellent a player is, the less opportunity they have had to develop the latter ability.
Many organizations use only “track record as a player” as the criteria for promotion.
The ability to move a team, the ability to develop subordinates, the ability to delegate judgment.
They promote based only on player results without having a mechanism to measure these.
Therefore, the people who get promoted are not “those suited for management,” but “those who were excellent as players.”
These two are different things.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Structural breakdown: Why does this misconnection occur?
There are three causes for the structure that leads to the misconnection of promotion criteria.
Cause 1: "Easy-to-understand achievements" are easily evaluated
Results as a player are visible in numbers.
Sales, achievement rates, number of projects.
They are easy to understand and easy to compare.
On the other hand, "the ability to develop a team" and "the ability to delegate" are difficult to quantify.
The evaluators also lack the mechanisms to measure them.
When relying on easy-to-understand metrics, promotions are naturally decided solely by player achievements.
What is visible gets evaluated, and what is invisible does not.
This asymmetry creates the misconnection.
Cause 2: The good intention of "wanting to reward excellent people" distorts judgment
Wanting to reward a player who has produced results is a natural feeling.
This good intention is a natural emotion.
However, in organizations where the only means of reward is "promotion," this good intention creates a misconnection.
Achievements that should really be rewarded with salary increases or recognition get mixed into the decision-making of a different dimension: promotion.
Promotion is not a "reward" but a "change of role".
Without this distinction, promotions are decided based on feelings of gratitude toward excellent people.
Cause 3: There is no mechanism to measure "managerial aptitude"
Many organizations do not define the skills necessary for management.
Therefore, there is no mechanism to measure that aptitude before promotion.
Without a mechanism to measure aptitude, the only material left for judgment is the track record as a player.
As a result, merit-based promotions continue.
Unless you define managerial aptitude and create a mechanism to measure it, this structure will not change.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Concrete example: What is happening in the field
This is a story about a certain company.
In the sales department, there was a player who had achieved overwhelming results.
Top numbers every year.
Everyone thought, "Promotion is a given."
He became a manager.
Six months later, the team's numbers dropped.
Subordinates requested transfers one after another.
The manager himself was suffering.
He repeatedly made the judgment that "it's faster if I do it myself," and work was not passed on to his subordinates.
His guidance to subordinates became an imposition of his own success pattern.
"This is how I achieved results. Why can't you do it?"
The organization concluded that "he was not suited for management."
They used the same criteria for the next promotion.
The same thing happened again.
It was when the third candidate for promotion appeared that this organization made a change.
They revised their promotion criteria.
In addition to a player's track record, they added evaluation items such as 'experience in delegating work to subordinates' and 'experience in mentoring junior staff.'
They established a trial period as a small-scale team leader before promotion.
During this trial period, it became possible to distinguish between those who remained stuck in a player's evaluation mindset and those who could switch to a team-oriented evaluation mindset.
As a result of promoting them after careful assessment, functional managers began to develop.
What they changed was not individual aptitude, but the design of the promotion process.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Solution: 3 Steps to Properly Design Promotion Criteria
Step 1: Articulate the 'Manager's Evaluation Function'
Clearly articulate what is expected of a manager.
Can they produce team results?
Can they delegate work to subordinates?
Can they create and share decision-making criteria?
Define this evaluation function separately from the player's evaluation function.
Unless defined, the only basis for judgment will be the player's past performance.
Step 2: Verify 'Delegation Experience' Before Promotion
Confirm whether the person has experience in delegating work to others to date.
Have they mentored junior staff?
Do they have experience in entrusting their own work to others and developing them?
If you promote someone without this experience directly to a management position, they will begin their managerial duties without having practiced delegation.
Judge their promotion only after they have gained experience with small-scale delegation.
Step 3: Design a 'Trial Period'
Instead of a full-scale promotion right away, establish a trial period involving small-scale leadership experience.
Temporarily entrust them with a team of a few people.
Observe whether they remain stuck in a player's evaluation mindset or have successfully switched to a team-oriented evaluation mindset.
This trial period prevents promotion mismatches caused by poor alignment.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Checklist: Is your organization's promotion criteria designed correctly?
□ Promotion criteria are based solely on performance as a player.
□ The skills required for management have never been articulated.
□ Experience in mentoring subordinates or juniors is not verified before promotion.
□ There is no system for trial periods or gaining leadership experience.
□ Promotions have been granted solely for the reason of wanting to reward high performers.
□ Managers who fail after promotion appear repeatedly.
□ The cause is dismissed solely as a matter of individual aptitude.
If three or more apply, your promotion criteria are still functioning as a player evaluation function.
You need to articulate the evaluation function for managers and create a trial mechanism.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Common failures: What organizations do when they try to revise promotion criteria
Failure 1: Stopping the evaluation of performance
In an attempt to revise promotion criteria, they begin to downplay performance as a player.
Performance remains an important factor in decision-making.
Stopping the practice of deciding based 'only' on performance is one thing, but ignoring performance entirely is a different mistake.
Failure 2: Making criteria stricter without establishing a trial period
They increase the evaluation items but do not create a mechanism to actually verify them.
Even if the criteria on paper increase, it is meaningless if you cannot assess the reality.
It is necessary to design actual processes such as trials and verification of experience.
Failure 3: Forgetting to care for high-performing players who were not promoted
As a result of stricter promotion criteria, high-performing players may not be promoted.
Without follow-up for those individuals, their motivation will drop.
Design rewards other than promotion, such as preparing career paths as specialists, at the same time.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Contrarian view: 'Not promoting' is also the correct response to high-performing talent
Some organizations feel guilty about not promoting high-performing players.
'Isn't it rude not to promote them when they have produced such results?'
However, making someone who is not suited for it a manager is also unfortunate for the person themselves.
A person who shone as a player suffers every day after becoming a manager.
The team also fails to function.
No one benefits.
The correct response to truly high-performing talent is to determine where their strengths can be best utilized.
That is not necessarily in management.
Not promoting someone is neither rude nor cold treatment.
It is the result of correctly evaluating their strengths and preparing a different career path.
There is no need to make every high-performing person a manager.
Whether an organization can hold this recognition is the prerequisite for the correct design of promotion criteria.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Summary
The reason managers break down after being promoted from top player roles is not primarily a matter of individual aptitude, but a structural organizational issue where promotion criteria are still designed based on player performance metrics.
This misalignment can be prevented by articulating the performance metrics for management roles, verifying experience in delegation, and establishing a probationary period.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Next step: What to do tomorrow
Think of one candidate for the next promotion.
Check if that person has experience in delegating work to subordinates or junior staff and helping them grow.
If they do not, start by having them gain small experiences in delegation before promoting them.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
How to articulate management performance metrics, how to design a probationary period before promotion, and how to build experience in delegation.
The complete procedures and templates for this are available in the Work OS Roadmap within the membership.
If you want to learn about promotion design systematically, go here.
→ https://note.com/kabu_nare/membership