What Got You Here Won't Get You There

People rarely anticipate that success itself can become the first step toward stagnation. In early career stages, advancement is tied closely to technical accomplishment—individual output, diligence, and personal expertise. Someone excels because they work harder, solve problems efficiently, or demonstrate superior knowledge. Those results generate promotions, praise, and confidence. Yet as responsibilities expand, success becomes less about individual brilliance and more about enabling others to succeed. At that point, interpersonal behavior—not technical competence—determines advancement.

The psychological challenge emerges when individuals struggle to recognize that the rules have changed. A high performer who once dominated projects now needs to collaborate, coach, and inspire rather than outshine everyone. However, because their self-worth is rooted in being the best, they often resist releasing control. They cling tightly to behaviors that once produced results, believing they are essential to continued achievement.

Goldsmith describes this as the self-reinforcing cycle of success, where individuals unconsciously rewrite history to explain their performance:

• They magnify their own contributions.

• They minimize the role of luck or team support.

• They frame all progress as proof that their methods are correct.

For example, a sales manager might insist that his aggressive, confrontational style is responsible for record revenue, ignoring the role of market conditions, his team’s persistence, or a product advantage. When confronted about abrasive behavior, he responds, “If I weren’t tough, we’d never hit our numbers.” This narrative protects ego but obstructs growth.

Often, the behaviors that limit leaders do not surface until they are placed in environments where relationship dynamics matter more than raw output. Someone who once thrived by competing internally suddenly collapses when collaboration and diplomacy become essential. They become the person who reaches high middle management, performs fantastically in metrics, yet mysteriously never receives executive invitations. Decisions about executive advancement depend heavily on trust, likability, presence, and emotional steadiness—areas technical high achievers often neglect.

Goldsmith emphasizes that successful people rarely fail due to lack of skill, but because their behaviors irritate, intimidate, or exhaust others. When a reputation becomes negative, doors close quietly and permanently.

The Psychology Behind Resistance to Change

While most people acknowledge that they are not perfect, they still resist altering familiar behaviors. They defend their habits as necessary, justified, or unchangeable. This resistance comes in several forms:

• Denial: “No one has ever complained about this before.”

• Minimization: “Sure, I interrupt occasionally, but not more than anyone else.”

• Blame: “I only lose my temper because other people are incompetent.”

• Defensiveness: “That’s just my personality.”

Goldsmith observes that talented leaders often take feedback as a personal attack because they interpret criticism as an evaluation of their identity instead of an invitation to grow. To many successful individuals, admitting fault threatens their foundational self-image: the belief that they rise because they are superior.

A classic coaching example involves a chief operating officer known for publicly humiliating colleagues during meetings. When confronted, he insisted:

• “I don’t humiliate people. I hold them accountable.”

• “If they can’t take pressure, they shouldn’t be here.”

• “My intensity is why this company succeeds.”

After anonymous 360-degree feedback revealed that dozens of ...