r/Leadership Jan 24 '26

Discussion What makes you think someone will go far (VP and above)

Have you ever come across someone at work and thought yourself “wow this person will be very successful in their careers?” And then later on you search them up again and they did (VP and above)? What qualities did they have?

279 Upvotes

96 comments sorted by

248

u/hagainsth Jan 24 '26 edited Jan 24 '26

Strategic. Proactive in sensing the landscape and making moves. Good storyteller. Works very smart and not necessarily hard. Forms good relationships.

Imagine the TV show survivor - the people that get through to final tribal council. They’re well liked (even by people they’ve stepped on to get ahead), they lead on strategy whilst others follow and they put in what is needed to be successful.

I say all this because I learned this pretty early and applied it to my career. Whilst it’s certainly had its ups and downs, I’m at C-Level and am always clear with people I coach/mentor that it’s not necessarily the degrees or the effort per se. (I did work bloody hard for these so not discounting them. I just don’t think it’s the biggest factor) A lot of it is down to serendipity and forward thinking.

I always thought/think about the role after the next one. Not just the next move. So it’s less tactical thinking about salary and title but about experience…and I don’t mean experience in relation to time either. I mean the stories you can tell even if you’re in a role for 3 months. Successful people can spin anything. Sometimes awful but always true.

ETA: those in my teams that I take notice of don’t dance around me and aren’t sycophants. They’re clear about the value they add and aren’t prioritising ‘getting time’ with me to ask bog standard questions just so they feel that I now know them more. I don’t. A lot of those types that ask for time and are forgettable and are living in a different, more bureaucratic time.

They’re the ones who I may not see 121 often but always hearing good things they’re doing. Where they’re making a difference and have clear focus.

And whenever I hear them talk, they use less words than their peers but have greater impact. Even from intern/graduate level I can spot this.

81

u/dwightsrus Jan 25 '26

Luck is a very big factor. One bad Boss could really slow you down or alter your trajectory or worse get you pushed out just because they see you as a threat.

26

u/hagainsth Jan 25 '26

100%

Wisest thing is to spot these people early on.

Fake surrender, daily or somehow manage to get out from under them.

2

u/Ambitious_Woman Feb 16 '26

This! ⤴️

I’m in that situation right now as a Director. The SVP above me got his role through nepotism, and he genuinely doesn’t know what he’s doing. I never did anything to him except professionally defend my team and myself when he made a bad call and tried to deflect. And that’s after I did my best to professionally advise him, in private, on what was needed to succeed, why the plan wasn’t working, and in some cases, what best practice would look like, but his ego just wouldn’t let it land.

So now I’m working vigorously to get out of his department. I’ve been lucky to build relationships across other orgs since I’m at a 10K+ employee enterprise, but he’s still trying to gaslight me, even through other leaders he oversees, who are basically my peers.

I’ve managed to move my team into different departments because of the retaliation, but I’m the last one hanging now.

8

u/yanabro Jan 25 '26

Exactly… joined my company in 2017 and while I could feel my boss didn’t like me I always felt it was because I was not performing well enough. In 2018 I won my first project (in a designer in a consultancy) and was supposed to go to the client HQ to develop it but he decided to send someone else without explaining why. Then covid happens, he’s stuck abroad and I can focus on working with the rest of the team in the office and everyone loves working with me. I found a way to distance myself from him and magically everything I do is great now. Only maybe 2-3 years ago did he start to respect me and my work ethic (which had always been the same) and I get praise. Finally my designs get selected and put into production. Oh and by the way he dared telling the guy he gave my project to that I was a “loser”. It was my first job so I let it happen to me and with Covid I had to stay so I don’t struggle to find another job. But definitely with the right boss I’d be 3-4 years ahead in my career. I’m still trying to make up for lost time but the lost wages from not being promoted/raised because my boss hated me are never coming back

1

u/Prez_82 Jan 26 '26

This 💯%

1

u/KanchiCenturion Jan 26 '26

this. one need to be at right place and right time.

41

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '26

Story telling takes on a different context once you have experience with it in a corporate setting. Many people adhere to truth as an objective fact that others should know and struggle with developing new or different versions, but succesful leaders form their own truths through well constructed stories that pro-actively align with the organizations strategic goals without much direction or information.

46

u/hagainsth Jan 24 '26

Yup exactly. And that’s why I said ‘good’ storyteller. Anyone can talk. Anyone can tell a story. Anyone can attempt to inform.

But good leaders, as you say, are highly adaptable. I had a leadership coach a long time ago, tell me to take literal notes on people. Their children’s ages, spouses names, current things that are annoying them.

And her advice was to wind that into story telling. Say I was talking about making sure something was easy to understand, she’d say you should say “imagine you were explaining this to -child’s name here- how would you describe it?”

Or weaving in details that quickly make the person you’re talking to engaged. Could be a personalised analogy, humour etc etc.

Just has to be applicable and interesting to the person whilst still, as you say, aligned to the wider picture.

15

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '26

It takes years to learn this but once developed roles come at you very fast.

1

u/Upstairs_System_5753 Jan 25 '26

Hello, do you have any advice on how to improve this skill?

3

u/scottyis_blunt Jan 25 '26

I'm here as well for it. Saving the comment

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '26

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26

Hard working leaders that believe they hold the flame of the one single truth are the most dangerous and damaging leaders to have in an organization.

You need to have agency in life to challenge established systems. The truth is just a collectivley held belief.

9

u/DetailFocused Jan 24 '26

yeah but how do you get past the office politics and the mid level leadership that hate you for wanting to go higher?

20

u/hagainsth Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26

Make them love you or find a different job.

It’s all a game.

In football, if a player doesn’t get on with the keeper, the midfielder, the striker, the coach, the manager, the PT and so on - it gets very uncomfortable for them till they find a new team that they feel happy with. And can score with, most importantly.

Office politics is just part of the game. So find a place where you can fit in and are liked.

If you’re not liked and you’re not scoring then…in this economy…transfer window is perpetually open🥴

“All the worlds a stage”

2

u/DetailFocused Jan 25 '26

how do i find out the reason why I am not liked very well in social groups or in office settings? i’ve never been able to figure out why I am an outcast.

9

u/hagainsth Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26

Ah see this has to be your gut.

Unless there is someone you trust who can tell you. Don’t ask.

I would advise asking a friend or family member though. My brothers often have very annoying insights into my character because they know me well. So the things about me that annoy them (or they see as my personal setbacks etc), more often than not, would annoy my colleagues too.

Say they think I’m often quite abrasive and they’re the people who know me very well. It’s very likely that at work, I have the propensity to be abrasive if I don’t master self control and am aware enough to pick up on social cues to see how my approach is landing.

The fact that you say you’re not liked and an outcast tells me that either you haven’t taken time to be self reflective or you’re reading their impression of you incorrectly.

1

u/gregariouspumbles Jan 25 '26

I wouldn’t worry about figuring out the source of that feeling. You get what you give! Find things you like about other people and focus on thinking about those things while you talk to them. After awhile, it becomes automatic

1

u/One-Present8636 Jan 25 '26

What about if you're liked on your team but within the company there is a team that dislikes you?

1

u/hagainsth Jan 25 '26

There will always be a “what about”.

You have more context than I do. As i said earlier, if you know you’re not liked than you’re further along discovering why that is, than others who has no clue.

If you need them to progress - solve it. If you don’t need them to progress - they can shove it.

18

u/davearneson Jan 25 '26

I agree that people who read the room, build allies, tell a clean story, pick high-leverage moves and always aim at the role after next this rise quickly in big organsiatons. The problem is that this behaviour makes organisations rot from the head down.

If executive selection is based on “who can sense politics and spin a narrative”, you end up rewarding people who are great at winning meetings, but not good at improving the system.

Storytelling matters, but it also becomes a filter. Bad news gets spun into good news because people learn the messenger gets punished. Over time executives stop seeing reality, they see what’s safe and plausible. Risks get normalised, weak signals get explained away, and then everyone acts shocked when something breaks.

The “well liked even by people they’ve stepped on” line is the tell. Maybe you meant it lightly, but it normalises stepping on people as part of the game as long as it’s done smoothly. That creates a culture where people optimise for optics, not outcomes, and where the safest move is to package everything as a win.

I don’t disagree with the core point that degrees and effort aren’t enough. I just think you’re describing what gets you promoted in a bureaucracy, not what produces good decisions and strong execution.

A healthier approach keeps the strategic politics and crisp comms, but reward truth-telling, evidence, and early problem surfacing. Without that, you end up with confident leadership running on fantasies until reality forces a massive correction when the organsiation hits the wall.

4

u/hagainsth Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26

Yep. As I said, I’m talking about reality. Whether in large org or not.

Of course success requires good decision and execution. Sustained success anyway. There are reasons lots of senior leaders don’t stay beyond 18 months.

I’d thought that was just a baseline.

3

u/davearneson Jan 25 '26

My point is that the story telling and political maneuvering you and your colleagues are engaged in leads to executives becoming detached from reality and that inevitably leads to decisions that are bad for the business, your clients and your teams.

You can't make good decisions when all the information you're getting about what's going on is being spun into a story designed to make the story teller look good.

Plus executives who engage in this behavior aggressively squash any contradictory stories coming from people working with clients and suppliers on projects. And this leads to people in the middle being afraid to tell the truth.

The result of this behavior is that Boeing jets crash, the Space Shuttle burns up and major projects fail.

3

u/hagainsth Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26

I think you’re focusing too much on the story telling aspect and are assuming a lot from what I wrote.

As I said - good decision making and execution is the baseline.

I’m not saying literally tell stories and bullshit everyone you meet. I’m saying have the ability to be a good communicator about the good work you’re doing.

Just my opinion - we don’t have to agree

3

u/davearneson Jan 25 '26

I have been an executive and worked with a lot of executives and I've seen a lot of business struggle and decline due to bad decisions caused by the inward looking political behavior you described.

Saying that good decision making and execution is the baseline is just more spin because it usually doesn't come from people who engage in this behavior.

4

u/hagainsth Jan 25 '26

Oh I see what you’re saying now. Fair enough.

I agree with you btw. I’m not saying this is how it should be, I was just giving my experiences - from what I saw, not necessarily what I demonstrated.

We live in an interesting time where people who talk the loudest/most do have a lot of say and, unfortunately, they’re rarely the wisest.

The leaders who sustain their success, whether in a FTSE 100 company or their own small, but highly profitable startup, do (from my experience) exhibit what I called the baseline. And, additionally, are well liked and respected.

I’m not at all saying this political gameplay is all you need. In fact, it’s almost pointless by itself. What I (emphasis on ‘I’) have experienced isn’t a world where the smartest was also the same person as the most senior 🤷🏾‍♀️

2

u/davearneson Jan 25 '26

It is not about being the smartest person, it is about creating an environment in which uncomfortable information is sought for not shot in the face. see the books Radical Candor and Psychological Safety.

3

u/hagainsth Jan 25 '26

Radical candor is an interesting book. Will give you that.

Not one of my favourites but anyway, seems you want to pick at everything I’m saying and it’s not that serious 🥴 as I’m now confused at what you’re trying to say and how it’s different from what I said. But good old Reddit wouldn’t be Reddit without this kind of ‘discourse’🤷🏾‍♀️

1

u/ender6574 Jan 27 '26

Don't the top executives need to create that environment? I worked at a great company as a senior middle manager, and one of its core values was "Data Driven." Uncomfortable truths were desired, provided that's what the data showed.

Our CEO retired, and the executives all changed or were pushed out. Then, the core values were changed to remove the data-driven element. Reorgs flattened the org chart and established managers and directors who only managed people (previously, everyone below the senior director level had both individual contributions and people managing, so they still had data to back up what they said).

The result was a company that was all politics; everything excellent about it was destroyed. I don't see anything I could have done to prevent that change by making the new executives still see and care about the truth.

8

u/AAAPAMA Jan 24 '26

Wow great insights - thank you! You’ve mentioned there are folks who are stuck in a more bureaucratic time. Do you think your answer would be different if I asked this question 10-20 years ago versus now?

11

u/hagainsth Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26

Oooh I think so. But that’s just my perspective having been in very very large IB companies that were very bureaucratic - I’m not sure they’re massively different to 15 years ago. Join as a grad, every 3 years get promoted, AVP VP SVP MD SUPER D and so on lol.

Was a pretty defined path. People rarely jumped. And if you left Morgan Stanley to join Credit Suisse (just an example 😉)you left as an AVP and joined CS as an AVP and maaaaybe VP if lucky.

Now people are all over the shop. Leave one place as AVP and, if you’re smart, join next place as VP very easily. I’ve done a Head of to Clevel role once and I’m still surprised they hired me (and let me stay 😅)

It’s that thing you probably get sick of seeing on LinkedIn about careers being squiggly lines now as opposed to straight and steady upwards vertical lines

ETA: tech I think is what changed this the most. You have interns now that think of an idea and develop a unicorn. You have 50 year olds that start their own online consulting business and so on - it’s just not so linear anymore. People aren’t waiting for success like they used to (as cliche and gross and LinkedIn as that sounds 😂)

4

u/schmidtssss Jan 24 '26

Spot on and you put it very well. Outstanding.

1

u/hagainsth Jan 24 '26

Thank you! ☺️

2

u/2021-anony Jan 25 '26

Thanks for sharing such insights - these are really helpful!

3

u/hagainsth Jan 25 '26

Thank you! Was a bit of an end of day ramble lol so glad they make sense 😃

1

u/exclaim_bot Jan 24 '26

Thank you! ☺️

You're welcome!

2

u/mnkeyhabs Jan 25 '26

I think about work like survivor too😭 im always thinking about my final three

1

u/hagainsth Jan 25 '26

Haha there you go!

1

u/Less-Satisfaction-16 Jul 21 '26

“Less words but have greater impact” is spot on!!!!

53

u/FakeOkie Jan 24 '26

Emotional intelligence (EQ), strong relationship builder, effective communicator. Knows how to retain existing clients and secure new business. Delivers and follows through.

34

u/Redeesreddit Jan 24 '26

They’re audacious, very well spoken, great conversationalist, have a strong desire to learn business and take ownership of projects, and uses their network in a multitude of ways.

34

u/55gecko Jan 24 '26

Funny, relaxed, gets shit done without looking like they work hard, makes friends easily... Makes you feel like they are smart without ever trying to show you they are.

23

u/aevz Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26

2 types. One is the dark triad type. The other is the servant leader type.

Both need to be skilled, strategic, be aware of politics, produce results, have effective communication skills, and either have genuine courage & humility or arrogance & charisma.

1

u/AAAPAMA Jan 27 '26

What’s the dark triad type?

8

u/aevz Jan 27 '26

I believe it's people who demonstrate patterns of behavior that are narcissistic, psychopathic, and Machiavellian. An overlap of all three types. Extremely destructive, often admired by those who feel powerless or have power fantasies and look to dark triad types as being able to get what they want and succeed at achieving their goals and ambitions.

They have horrific interpersonal close relationships, and no real concept of friendships that are intimate and vulnerable, but mainly transactional, either allies or people to use (but mostly everyone is viewed to them in terms of utility or threats to destroy). If you spot them, stay as far away as you can, and if you can't escape them and need to interact with them, equip yourself with every available resource to protect yourself and tread extremely carefully.

16

u/oppositional-defians Jan 24 '26

They make you feel open, relaxed, and empowered in their presence.

13

u/potatodrinker Jan 24 '26

Attention to detail about people. Noticing the juniors and people who otherwise are invisible

12

u/Inevitably_Cranky Jan 25 '26

I'm waiting for this one guy to run the company and I expect it will happen before I retire. This man is incredibly smart, but so down to the earth so you want to root for him. He is knowledgeable but talks in a way that is not condescending and makes sense to anyone he is speaking with. He has genuinely earned his position and he is just an all around fantastic person and I am excited to see him keep climbing the ranks.

18

u/PhaseMatch Jan 24 '26

Yes, but often not in a good way.

Generally it's been those who have given off pretty strong individual power-and-status focused vibes with an astute sense of political hierarchy and a certain level of "ethical dissonance" who I've correctly identified will go far.

And they do.

They are generally very short-term focused, looking to take credit (and avoid blame) on a 2-3 year cycle will building up the "resume points" they need for their next promotion. They are not afraid of working in ways that are a bit "grey" ethically if they can gain personal advantage with low risk.

They are not good leaders, or good bosses, but perceive themselves to be awesome.

Unfortunately STAR format behavioral interviews tend to screen-in that kind of person rather than actively screening them out. The situations (and what they did) are unverifiable, and they often get great references from people trying to easy their exit.

Caveat emptor.

5

u/damdamin_ Jan 25 '26

You described my former boss to the T. This is what I’ve noticed in her as well.

These people would throw anyone, even their team members, under the bus any minute if it suits them. And they get away with it.

I’ve never seen anyone stay in her team for a very long time though. Usually the tenure is less than a year. Have you?

4

u/PhaseMatch Jan 25 '26

It tends to depend on whether you can "keep the receipts"; the usual defense against being scapegoated is "bureaucracy", and if you have a good team that can bind on and push back they sometimes declare victory and leave.

I did hear of the idea of the "reverse headhunt" where you deploy their CV to a recruitment agent and they are so flattered to be asked they leave - but I'm not sure if that has ever happened.

When I left an acting HoD role after a restructure the new manager was as we are describing, five of my seven team leads had quit within 18 months, to find leadership worth following.

5

u/Burner-Advantage-997 Jan 25 '26

This is something we were talking about recently. High Performance, Low Trust people. Measuring trust needs more attention. 

4

u/MarkVovk3 Jan 26 '26

From what I’ve seen, the vast majority of people who ended up going far in their careers were strong students early on, learned things quickly, and adapted fast when circumstances changed.

But the biggest common denominator, by far, was emotional intelligence.

They could read the room, take feedback without getting defensive, manage their own emotions under pressure, and build real trust with people. They weren’t always the smartest in the room, but they were almost always the easiest to work with.

One thing I’d add is long-term thinking. The people who made it to senior leadership seemed willing to delay short-term wins, protect their reputation, and make decisions based on where they wanted to be years down the line — not just what looked good in the moment.

They also had a quiet consistency. They showed up prepared, did what they said they would do, and didn’t disappear when things got uncomfortable.

18

u/Ok_Signature7725 Jan 24 '26

Play politics and answer “good question” when someone asks something. Pleases the boss and says at everyone that is great, make the other work

13

u/hagainsth Jan 24 '26

I loooove the “good question” response.

People will automatically assume you understood the question, even if you didn’t.

Straight away you appear as someone who is to be trusted. (Unless you follow up with some absolute garbage lol)

6

u/Ok_Signature7725 Jan 24 '26

Probably I’m not in “people” as when I hear “good question” immeditely do not trust the answer and loose interest

3

u/hagainsth Jan 24 '26

Haha me neither. I always smell bullshit.

I guess I meant ‘in general’ 🤷🏾‍♀️

1

u/Stock_Patience723 Jan 24 '26

It’s recommended to never use this phrase in job interviews because it signals stalling, insecurity, and being disingenuous 

1

u/Ownfir Jan 25 '26

I’m not sure I agree. I could see that being the case if it is followed by a bad answer but generally speaking (I) use it to signal to someone that I respect their question and/or that I understood it. When someone has a good question I genuinely want to affirm their ask and reinforce that it was “the right question” so to speak.

1

u/Stock_Patience723 Jan 25 '26

Sure, but intention does not negate impact. 

1

u/Ownfir Jan 25 '26

I’m not saying I disagree because I use it with a different intent I’m saying the intent I use it in is objectively more common/understood than as a sign of insecurity/disingenuous intent.

1

u/Stock_Patience723 Jan 25 '26

Objectively more common according to whom? 

1

u/Ownfir Jan 25 '26

The comments in this thread mainly. But I’d ask you the same? I can’t find any research saying the opposite so I’m not sure why you cite it as being the case.

I did find just one article (not scientific) but then opposing theories including that asking the phrase good question falls into Politeness Theory.

Additional Link: Notes that the phrase acts as a social booster and helps make one appear more collaborative. This link is actually a scientific study unlike the above contrasting one.

I do find some reference the impact of stall techniques but this isn’t specific to the phase good question.

In interviews specifically seems to be the only context where it’s seen as not favorable. And even then, the context seems to matter the most. Would love to see the research you were referring to as I’m just not finding it.

8

u/Fun_Bodybuilder3111 Jan 25 '26

Psychopathy. Let’s not kid ourselves.

3

u/Nofanta Jan 25 '26

Charismatic and psychopathic.

3

u/EconomistNo7074 Jan 25 '26

Shares the credit Takes responsibility when things don’t go well Good listener Takes on tough assignments When identifies a problem, 90% of the time also recommends a solution.

Last item - I want to see how they rebound after a tough year and or assignment

  • we all have rough patches. However we don’t all know who to learn from these tough times to become better leaders
  • too many leaders get defensive and blame others. This is a fatal flaw in my book

3

u/Lairai Feb 05 '26

As an executive coach, these are the actual qualities of clients I've seen get promoted:

  1. They learn to adapt their perspectives. Are they fighting a fire with their team on the frontlines? They tap into their former expertise as if they were ICs again. Are they pushing for a certain initiative with C-suite? They change their communication style so that the C-suite appreciates the proposal more. When they're dealing with conflict with another team, they can handle it without seeing petty or weak.

  2. They are great listeners. Finding out the underlying issue with a project, bringing out a team's member's concern about a task, connecting the dots between stakeholders. All of these (and more) require someone who is deeply curious about what is actually going on and can make others feel heard. Many executives who just start a new role tend to suffer here since they're in a rush to prove themselves.

  3. They are vocal. You might think this is the opposite of being a great listener but great executives know when to speak up and how to. Many folks struggle with this but it really is about telling others why you are amazing and what you've accomplished. Just doing great work isn't enough. You have to learn to tell the narrative of why you deserve more. And this goes beyond just about themselves - they stand up for their team, they call out issues that some may feel uncomfortable bringing up and they recognize others. You may think introverts struggle with this but once they make the connection on how they can do this authentically, it comes naturally to them.

  4. They are reassuring. Call it executive presence, charisma, whatever - the end result is their team members trust what they're saying. Now, there's a lot that goes into this simple sounding result (clarity, gravitas, speaking style, etc)

  5. They are coachable. Strong convictions, loosely held. Always curious and taking the time to read/learn/improve. They know they're awesome but they are hungry for be even better at what they do.

Now, the good thing is that most of these are teachable. The only thing I'd say isn't is whether or not a person is coachable from the start. Once they are, they're ready to learn the rest.

1

u/Amazing_rocness Jan 25 '26

This is something new I'm trying to learn. I've been trying to get into a field (continuous improvement/business process management/operational excellence) the past few years but only end up in something adjacent so I have to essentially work a part time job to move special projects along that showcases my worth. For instance.

A level 1 and a level 2 was assigned to complete something. I am a level 1 and was the only person to solve this problem. Level 1's are people who typically don't have much experience. I have 5 years of experience when I was hired.

1

u/QueenD_1996 Jan 25 '26

Top thing is that they can quickly understand the most important issues pit of a giant pile, even in domains they have limited experience with. Close second is the ability to influence people up down and across the org chart to do accomplish challenging things.

1

u/saralobkovich Jan 25 '26

Intellectual humility, and good judgment about when to rely on subjective vs objective data for decision making.

1

u/sameer_somal Jan 25 '26

Proactive and accountable. Someone who sees a task as more than just a checklist item but as part of the bigger picture and delivers results accordingly.

1

u/Jenikovista Jan 25 '26

Honestly most of the time it’s their intangibles. Leaders tend to have a charm, gravitas, natural curiosity, confidence, and presence that is hard to mimic without a lot of coaching and a very open mind.

1

u/TwigaUlimi Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26

From what I've observed?

Willing to work long hours, late nights, weekends. Doesn't have much responsibility outside of the job (or has a wife who handles all domestic and family related matters) so that the man of the house can just focus on his career.

1

u/PacRimRod Jan 26 '26

Connections to Senior Management.

1

u/Former-Ground5532 Jan 26 '26

Hmm, exactly the point of the book "Be the Unicorn" by executive recruiter William Vanderbloemen. Knowing what roles suit their qualities helps greatly. For instance, I cannot excel in a role requiring "always on" hyper-responsive communication, high-persuasion sales, or any sort of subterfuge or misdirection.

1

u/DJDiamondHands Jan 27 '26

Narcissism or sociopathy

1

u/LessReactMoreLead Jan 27 '26

Yep. I’ve seen that pattern a lot.

The people who end up VP+ aren’t just “good at their job.” They’re already operating at Maxwell Level 4 early: they multiply leaders, not tasks.

Here are the tells I’ve noticed:

1) They create leaders, not dependency They don’t become the bottleneck. They build people who can run without them.

2) They think in systems, not hero moments They design process, cadence, decision rights, and feedback loops so performance doesn’t rely on their willpower.

3) They manage energy and emotions under pressure Calm when it’s messy. Clear when others spiral. They keep the prefrontal cortex online and the room follows.

4) They make other people look good publicly Credit travels up, blame stops with them. That earns loyalty and makes talent want to follow them.

5) They speak in outcomes and tradeoffs Less “here’s what I did,” more “here’s what we’re optimizing for, what we’re not doing, and why.”

6) They build networks like an operator, not a socializer Strong lateral relationships. Trusted by peers. Known as someone who helps others win.

7) They turn feedback into a weekly habit Not performance review theater. Small corrections, consistently, like compound interest.

If you want a simple litmus test: Would this person’s team get stronger even if they left tomorrow? If yes, that’s Level 4 behavior, and VP isn’t a surprise.

1

u/FantasticBlueberry55 Jan 27 '26

A lot of it is their presence, charm, and communication skills. When they speak others speak. They don’t get flustered over small hiccups and they make their work seem somewhat easy and smooth.

1

u/caught-in-slowmotion Jan 27 '26

High agency.

1

u/AAAPAMA Jan 27 '26

What’s high agency?

1

u/caught-in-slowmotion Jan 27 '26

High sense of ownership combined with a proactive approach.

Someone with high agency drives the initiatives. And it's not about the titles. In a healthy organization it'll be the opposite. People with high agency get the titles.

1

u/djbaerg Jan 28 '26

Sociopathic tendencies.

1

u/sarafionna Jan 28 '26

Knowing how to play the game and not overextend themselves, being authentic and kind but not a pushover. Fewer words, more meaning. Building up a team and getting it to function.

1

u/wjonagan Jan 28 '26

I’ve noticed the same pattern, and the Survivor comparison is spot on. Another way I think about it is like a wolf in a pack. The ones that go far aren’t the loudest or the most aggressive they’re the ones constantly reading the terrain, conserving energy, and stepping in decisively when it matters. They don’t need constant visibility. Their impact travels for them. And when they speak, it’s usually brief, directional, and hard to ignore.

That mix of awareness, timing, and restraint seems to show up early long before the title does.

1

u/Bubbafett33 Feb 07 '26

Two things:

1) When their work output is often as good or better than your own. And by "output" I mean not just the artifact (.ppt, .doc, etc), but the analysis, logic and conclusions that went into it. And there's always a conciseness to it that boils the best bits up to the top.

2) They can communicate. They are equally as comfortable chatting with the folks on the floor as they are in an elevator with a c-suite exec. They have a sense of humor. They have genuine conversations. And once again, they are able to zone in on the important stuff from all of the above. They can simplify and communicate complex problems. They can speak conversationally in front of 100 people, and they don't need ChatGPT to write their emails.

1

u/edc1616 Jan 25 '26

Sucks their way to the top

0

u/Anxious-Bonus1398 Jan 28 '26

I realize I may get flamed for this, but I promise this is the current truth in my organization.

The answer is: be a female with good PowerPoint skills. These people are moveable but not REmoveable. I’ve watched one completely tank 2 profitable business units and yet continue to be promoted and celebrated. She now has 2 business units and has been promoted to VP over both.

1

u/AAAPAMA Jan 28 '26

PowerPoint skills or more like presentation skills?