A recent post by Si Conroy gave me one of those rare lightbulb moments.

He made a simple but profound observation about leadership: a leader must be willing to suffer for others. His conclusion was equally uncompromising:

“If you are not willing to do that, you should look at other career options.”

That statement stopped me in my tracks because it challenges almost everything many organisations reward.

Leadership has become a prize

Too often, leadership is treated as the natural reward for technical excellence.

Deliver outstanding financial results? Promotion.

Lead a successful project? Promotion.

Solve complex problems? Promotion.

Stay with the organisation long enough? Promotion.

None of these achievements are bad. They demonstrate competence, discipline and expertise. The problem is that technical competence is not the same as leadership capability.

Leadership is not simply taking responsibility for work. It is taking responsibility for people.

The distinction matters.

Why good performers become poor leaders

Many operating models unintentionally promote the wrong people.

Performance management systems measure delivery, efficiency and results. Recruitment panels evaluate experience, qualifications and previous achievements. Success is often defined by what someone has accomplished rather than by how they enabled others to succeed.

As a result, technically brilliant professionals are promoted into leadership roles where the requirements fundamentally change.

Instead of solving problems themselves, they must develop others to solve them.

Instead of being the smartest person in the room, they must create a room where everyone contributes.

Instead of controlling outcomes, they must build trust.

Instead of producing results personally, they must inspire people to produce results together.

That transition requires emotional intelligence, humility, self-awareness, empathy and emotional maturity.

These are not “soft skills.”

They are leadership skills.

Without them, leaders struggle to create psychological safety, fail to earn trust and cannot inspire people to follow them willingly through uncertainty and adversity.

The danger of rewarding the wrong behaviours

There is another uncomfortable reality.

Many people who rise into leadership are exceptionally good at managing perceptions.

They cultivate influential networks.

They remain close to powerful decision-makers.

They become highly skilled at communicating successes—both their own and those of their teams—while carefully shaping the narrative around failures.

When executives focus almost exclusively on outcomes, they may overlook the methods used to achieve them.

Were employees respected?

Was fear used instead of inspiration?

Did innovation flourish, or did people remain silent because speaking up felt unsafe?

Were results achieved through collaboration, or through intimidation?

If organisations reward outcomes without examining behaviours, they risk promoting individuals who consistently deliver numbers while quietly destroying trust.

This may explain why research repeatedly finds that individuals with manipulative, narcissistic or even sociopathic tendencies can thrive in leadership environments. They often excel at appearing decisive, confident and successful while leaving behind exhausted teams, high turnover, disengagement and cultures of fear.

The financial results may look impressive in the short term.

The human cost is often hidden until the best people begin to leave.

Leadership requires sacrifice

The idea that leadership involves suffering for others feels almost counter-cultural.

Modern leadership is frequently associated with influence, status, authority and executive privilege.

Yet history consistently celebrates leaders who accepted personal cost for the benefit of others.

The best leaders absorb pressure instead of transferring it.

They protect their teams during difficult periods.

They take responsibility when things go wrong.

They give credit when things go right.

They make difficult decisions knowing they may become unpopular.

They carry burdens others cannot see.

Leadership is less about asking, “What do I gain?” and more about asking, “What am I prepared to give?”

That is service.

We need different career paths

Perhaps the greatest mistake organisations make is assuming that every high performer should become a people leader.

Some individuals derive energy from solving complex technical problems.

Others enjoy designing systems, analysing data or building products.

Many have little interest in coaching, mentoring or developing people—and there is nothing wrong with that.

We need career pathways that recognise and reward technical mastery without forcing talented professionals into leadership positions they neither enjoy nor are equipped to perform.

Distinguished engineers, principal architects, senior specialists, expert consultants and technical fellows should receive the same respect, compensation and organisational influence as senior people leaders.

Leadership should not be the only path to career progression.

When we separate technical excellence from leadership excellence, everyone wins.

Technical experts continue doing what they love.

People leaders focus on developing people.

Organisations retain both.

A different question

Perhaps leadership appointments should begin with a different question.

Not:

“Can this person deliver results?”

But:

“Would people willingly follow this person through difficult times?”

If the answer is no, promotion may create a manager—but not a leader.

Leadership is not a reward for past performance.

It is a commitment to serve.

It is the willingness to place the wellbeing, growth and success of others ahead of personal comfort.

If we promoted leaders on that basis, our organisations would not only perform better—they would become places where people genuinely wanted to belong.