The manager role has become one of the most demanding jobs in an organization, yet it is still too often treated as a default next step for high performers. When leadership is framed as a reward for high performance, organizations end up with managers who never actively opted into the work associated with managing others, and teams feel the consequences fast. Recent research highlighted in Harvard Business Review (HBR) points to a rising share of “reluctant managers” — capable individual contributors who transition to people leadership without a clear understanding of what the role demands, and without a meaningful chance to opt out. The impact is predictable: weaker coaching and accountability, inconsistent performance conversations, lower engagement, and higher retention risk.

The good news is that this is a solvable problem. The solution is a stronger, more forward-looking leadership selection process — one that makes management an active choice, and uses objective data to determine who is likely to succeed in the role.

The Root Issue: Promotion Systems Reward the Wrong Signal

Many organizations still treat high individual performance as the primary qualifier for management. That approach assumes that excellence in an individual contributor role translates into excellence leading people. Sometimes it does. Often, it does not.

The HBR article summarizes a key pattern: many new managers enter the role with limited exposure to the hardest parts of the job: prioritization under pressure, difficult performance conversations, calibration discussions, and the emotional labor of managing across competing demands. When the first real preview of management comes after the promotion, reluctance manifests as disengagement, avoidance, or burnout. That is not a character flaw. It is a process flaw.

Make Management a Deliberate Decision

A stronger system starts by treating management as a distinct job with distinct requirements. That means building two pathways that carry equal status:

1. People leadership track
2. Individual contributor or specialist track

When management is positioned as the only “real” promotion, high performers feel pushed into roles they do not want, and teams pay the price.

The HBR article also highlights three design elements in the modern manager selection process:

1. A realistic preview of the role: Simulations, structured case exercises, shadowing, and exposure to the challenging, less visible parts of management help candidates self-select in or out.
2. Mentorship and candid conversations: Pairing candidates with newer managers for honest discussions creates a clearer picture of the job — not the title.
3. A non-punitive off-ramp: Candidates need a way to step away from the process without stigma. That single feature can prevent a large share of reluctant-manager placements.

These steps reduce the odds of installing reluctance. They also signal something important: the organization respects the role enough to treat it seriously.

Use Assessments to Shift from “Best Performer” to “Best Fit”

Realistic previews help candidates decide whether they want the job. Assessments help decision-makers determine whether a candidate is likely to succeed in it, and what support will be required.

This is where the Leadership Skills Profile – Revised® (LSP-R®) becomes especially useful.

The LSP-R is a leadership assessment that measures the skills that differentiate effective managers from overwhelmed or avoidant ones. It also produces tangible, coachable development targets, which turns selection into the start of a development plan, not the end of a promotion process.

Used at the right moment, an assessment like the LSP-R supports three critical outcomes:

• Selection with clearer evidence
  Decisions become less dependent on reputation, visibility, or who has the strongest internal advocate.
• Earlier identification of risk
  Patterns such as conflict avoidance, inconsistent coaching behaviors, or low comfort with performance conversations can be flagged before a promotion.
• Development plans that are specific and measurable
  Instead of generic “leadership training,” development can focus on the skills the role will demand in the next six-to-12 months.

Assessments do not replace judgment. They improve it by adding structure, consistency, and defensibility.