I'm rewriting this comment, because I needed to get to my students and couldn't finish my initial thoughts. I posed the question in the field note to my students. Of the ten in the class, half agreed that we should train our replacement. The rest were divided into no way or no real opinion.
The main thoughts of the students were, we "should" train them, but only the two specifically said they would train their potential replacement. I thought their input interesting.
I personally believe in the philosophy of, "Develop your people to the point they no longer need you." I also understand human behavior is human behavior. Self preservation above all.
This is why emphasize making it the leader's responsibility to make sure the organization has great bench strength. Our approach is to praise the high performer for their work and their value to the organization, but at some point they will be on vacation, or away and the work still has to be done, so we need bench strength.
To the point of having them write out what they do or how they do it. In the Marine Corps we called those documents Desk Top Procedures and Turnover Folders. They are important documents for all organizations, but very few have any. My "EXCUSE" for not having them for my job is I don't have the time. Writing them out and keeping them updated is time consuming, but important. It is still a goal I have, but not one I can't invest time in due to mission needs.
Hi Steve. Interesting that only a small percentage of your “should” answers are also “would” people. You’d think there is likely a further drop off to those who “actually would” too. This shows why the number of admired leaders we discover is reliably tiny in all organizations we study.
The Peter Principle book is a must, although a bit old fashion, but once you past that is as relevant as ever.
It shows up in what leaders choose to leave alone. That is the most precise diagnosis I have read of why AI transformation stalls.
The extraction path is not just pragmatism or short-term pressure. It is identity preservation. The authority structures that need redesigning are the same ones that told these leaders they were competent, worthy of their position, and safe. Redesign Mode asks them to question the very architecture that validated them.
That is not a governance problem or an incentive problem, though it shows up as both. It is a leadership identity problem. And it is why the most important question in any AI transformation is not "where can we redesign?" but "who in this organisation has built their sense of self on the structure we are asking them to give up?"
Until that question is on the table, the fork stays hidden.
True. If the goal is to elevate their role internally, a high performer likely doesn't want to indicate that they've trained AI to do their job until they've already explored the opportunity for real advancement.
There are some significant adjustments you'd want to make if the discussion was solely about AI adoption.
Excellent point. I have frequently observed this in my coaching practice, and it hasn't changed much since I started in the 90s. It's usually a matter of, "Why should I promote someone who makes me look good?"
The “too valuable to promote” trap is real but many high performers don’t see it in the moment and become so indispensable in their current role that organizations leave them there instead of developing them, which eventually kills motivation and drives them out.
The fix requires intentional self-replacement: document your work, delegate portions of the process, develop a backfill candidate, then actively seek stretch assignments that showcase different capabilities.
The Ready Set calls this out through Challenge Driven and Adaptive Thinking: if you’re not expanding your skills beyond your current expertise, you’re building a ceiling, not a career. The best move is making yourself replaceable on purpose so you can grow into something bigger. And if your organization won’t let you, well, that’s the signal to find one that will.
A great article for discussion!
I'm rewriting this comment, because I needed to get to my students and couldn't finish my initial thoughts. I posed the question in the field note to my students. Of the ten in the class, half agreed that we should train our replacement. The rest were divided into no way or no real opinion.
The main thoughts of the students were, we "should" train them, but only the two specifically said they would train their potential replacement. I thought their input interesting.
I personally believe in the philosophy of, "Develop your people to the point they no longer need you." I also understand human behavior is human behavior. Self preservation above all.
This is why emphasize making it the leader's responsibility to make sure the organization has great bench strength. Our approach is to praise the high performer for their work and their value to the organization, but at some point they will be on vacation, or away and the work still has to be done, so we need bench strength.
To the point of having them write out what they do or how they do it. In the Marine Corps we called those documents Desk Top Procedures and Turnover Folders. They are important documents for all organizations, but very few have any. My "EXCUSE" for not having them for my job is I don't have the time. Writing them out and keeping them updated is time consuming, but important. It is still a goal I have, but not one I can't invest time in due to mission needs.
Love the thoughts and discussions and feedback.
Be safe.
Hi Steve. Interesting that only a small percentage of your “should” answers are also “would” people. You’d think there is likely a further drop off to those who “actually would” too. This shows why the number of admired leaders we discover is reliably tiny in all organizations we study.
Sadly, I believe you are correct. I make it part of my mission to switch the numbers in the correct direction.
Be safe.
The Peter Principle book is a must, although a bit old fashion, but once you past that is as relevant as ever.
It shows up in what leaders choose to leave alone. That is the most precise diagnosis I have read of why AI transformation stalls.
The extraction path is not just pragmatism or short-term pressure. It is identity preservation. The authority structures that need redesigning are the same ones that told these leaders they were competent, worthy of their position, and safe. Redesign Mode asks them to question the very architecture that validated them.
That is not a governance problem or an incentive problem, though it shows up as both. It is a leadership identity problem. And it is why the most important question in any AI transformation is not "where can we redesign?" but "who in this organisation has built their sense of self on the structure we are asking them to give up?"
Until that question is on the table, the fork stays hidden.
True. If the goal is to elevate their role internally, a high performer likely doesn't want to indicate that they've trained AI to do their job until they've already explored the opportunity for real advancement.
There are some significant adjustments you'd want to make if the discussion was solely about AI adoption.
if someone is “too valuable to move,” that’s usually a system problem, not a performance problem.
Great companies promote people who build others, not just those who produce the most. Otherwise, high performance turns into a career trap.
Excellent point. I have frequently observed this in my coaching practice, and it hasn't changed much since I started in the 90s. It's usually a matter of, "Why should I promote someone who makes me look good?"
The “too valuable to promote” trap is real but many high performers don’t see it in the moment and become so indispensable in their current role that organizations leave them there instead of developing them, which eventually kills motivation and drives them out.
The fix requires intentional self-replacement: document your work, delegate portions of the process, develop a backfill candidate, then actively seek stretch assignments that showcase different capabilities.
The Ready Set calls this out through Challenge Driven and Adaptive Thinking: if you’re not expanding your skills beyond your current expertise, you’re building a ceiling, not a career. The best move is making yourself replaceable on purpose so you can grow into something bigger. And if your organization won’t let you, well, that’s the signal to find one that will.