High Performers = Better Leaders? Probing the Validity of Performance-based Promotion to Fill Leader Positions

Abstract

Promoting high-performing employees to leadership positions is a pervasive practice and has high face validity. However, little is known about the actual link between employee and subsequent leader performance, as prior results are inconclusive. Given the prevalence of this meritocratic promotion strategy, we conducted a study to address this inconsistency. To account for the diverging results, we (a) competitively tested predictions from different theoretical perspectives (i.e., the performance requirements perspective, the follower-centric perspective, and the Theory of Expert Leadership), (b) considered possible changes in the predictive validity of this strategy over time, and (c) included job complexity as potential moderator of the link between employee and subsequent leader performance. In a high stakes context (i.e., the first German soccer division), we tested the initial predictive validity of employee performance for leader performance immediately following the promotion and the ensuing development over time. Our results suggest a low validity of meritocratic promotion, as we could not find evidence for a link between employee performance and later leader performance—neither initially nor over time, which is consistent with the performance requirements perspective. We, thus, caution against the (sole) application of meritocratic promotion principles.