Chapter 23

Derailment: How Successful Leaders Avoid It

William A. Gentry

In This Chapter

• Why derailment is an important topic.
• The history of managerial derailment research.
• The five problem areas of derailed leaders.
• Strategies for avoiding derailment.
• What to do if you have derailed.

 

We’ve heard about them, or seen them, or we may have even been one of them. They have initially been given different labels: superstar, can’t-miss prospect, golden child, high potential. They had all the promise in the world to succeed at the highest of leadership levels and responsibilities. And sometimes they did in fact succeed. But sometimes these people with high potential flamed out and eventually did not live up to the high expectations others had of them. This chapter looks at the problem areas and behaviors of these once-promising talented managers who started strong but ultimately did not go as far as expected, a phenomenon the literature has labeled “managerial derailment.”

The chapter first explains why leaders and organizations should be concerned with the phenomenon of derailment. Next, it details the history of derailment research and how the Center for Creative Leadership identified the five problem areas associated with derailed leaders:

• problems with interpersonal relationships
• difficulty leading a team
• difficulty changing or adapting
• failure to meet business objectives
• a functional orientation that is too narrow.

The chapter also provides research findings and practical advice on how to minimize the likelihood of derailment and avoid derailment completely. Finally, it outlines strategies to recover from actual derailment.

Ineffective Managers: Are There Really That Many?

We all know managers and leaders who are ineffective. They are portrayed on television shows and in movies. They are real people in the realm of sports or politics. Their travails have been detailed in the media and in books. They may even be in the next cubicle. But are they as prevalent as we think? Table 23-1 shows the estimated ineffective rates of managers in different research studies over recent decades. “Ineffectiveness” in this case is a broad term that encompasses terms such as “disappointment” (for example, Sorcher 1985; White and DeVries 1990), “incompetence” (Millikin-Davies 1992; Shipper and Wilson 1992), “mis-hire” (Smart 2005), and “failure” (Hogan, Curphy, and Hogan 1994; Rogers and Smith 2004). The data suggests that yes, ineffectiveness is prevalent in organizations, with one of every two leaders and managers estimated to be ineffective (that is, a disappointment, incompetent, a mis-hire, or a complete failure) in their current roles.

Given the high prevalence of ineffective managers and leaders, what are the consequences for organizations? What is the cost of ineffective leaders for organizations? In short, managerial ineffectiveness is extremely costly. C-level executives who fail in their jobs and therefore need to be replaced may have buy-out clauses in their contracts or severance packages that can be two to three times their salaries, plus benefits, and they may even be given millions of dollars worth of annual payments (Conger and Nadler 2004). Though not as highly profiled, those lower in the organization such as middle-level managers are also in danger of failing or derailing (Gentry and others 2007; Shipper and Dillard 2000), and replacing these ineffective managers can also be expensive, time consuming, and disruptive because there are so many more managers at these lower levels than C-level executives. Regardless of managerial level, whenever a manager or leader is ineffective and must be replaced, the organization has to spend time and money on recruitment, selection, and onboarding to make a new hire. The total direct and indirect costs can be 15 to 20 times an executive’s salary, upward of millions or maybe billions of dollars spent because of the replacement of one ineffective middle-level leader or C-level executive (Finkelstein 2004; Smart 1999, 2005; Wells 2005). In addition, replacing a failed leader or executive can damage the confidence and psyche of the individual who failed, and it can negatively affect relationships with customers and the morale of co-workers, especially those who worked closely with the failed leader (Finkin 1991; Gillespie and others 2001).

Table 23-1. Estimated Ineffective Rates for Managers from Experts’ Studies

Study	Estimated Rate(percent)
Bentz (1985b)	50
Charan (2005)	40
Fernandez-Araoz (1999)	40
Hogan, Curphy, and Hogan (1994)	55 (range 50-60)
Hogan and Kaiser (2005)	50
Hogan, Raskin, and Fazzini (1990)	67 (range 60-75)
Lombardo and Eichinger (2005)	50
Millikin-Davies (1992)	50
Rogers and Smith (2004)	50
Sessa and others (1998)	30
Shipper and Wilson (1992)	60
Smart (1999)	50
Smart (2005)	75
Sorcher (1985)	33
White and DeVries (1990)	50
Mean	50
Median	50

Note: “Ineffective” is used here broadly in this context to encompass disappointment, incompetence, mis-hire, and actual failure as used in the actual article cited.

---

Many of these ineffective managers and executives who eventually failed had all the makings of being the best in their companies early in their careers. But for some reason, these managers got fired, got demoted, or reached a career plateau, and therefore failed to make it as far as others thought they should. This is the phenomenon known as derailment. For more than three decades, researchers have sought to determine the reasons behind managerial derailment.

A Brief Historical Synopsis of 30-Plus Years of Managerial Derailment Research

The impetus of derailment research can be traced back to research at AT&T comparing successful managers who progressed far in their careers with those who never rose through the managerial levels as expected (Bray, Campbell, and Grant 1974; Bray and Howard 1983). These studies showed that unsuccessful managers lacked the leadership, administrative, and career skills that their successful managerial counterparts possessed. This type of research continued with Bentz’s (1985a, 1985b) studies at Sears, Roebuck, and Company, where he found several aspects of mental ability, motivation, skills, vocational interests, and personality traits were related to job performance and potential (that is, promotability) and failures. Extending this research, Kotter (1982) concluded that managers who did not succeed at higher levels were a poor fit with the demands of the job, and Gabarro (1987) indicated that executives who failed at higher levels did not have the requisite background to be successful in upper-tier executive positions and had a history of relationship problems with their co-workers. These studies laid the groundwork for studying derailed managers.

Whereas the previous studies concentrated on comparing successful to failed leaders, studies that actually focused on leaders who derailed started at the Center for Creative Leadership in the early 1980s, when McCall and Lombardo (1983) interviewed senior executives from three Fortune 500 companies. As part of their research, McCall and Lombardo asked these executives to tell the story of a person who had all the promise to succeed at the highest of levels in an organization but eventually was demoted, fired, plateaued (that is, stopped advancing), or opted for early retirement. These leaders were defined as those who derailed.

At first, McCall and Lombardo (1983) found many similarities between these stories of derailed executives and those of successful executives. Both derailed and successful executives knew the business and were savvy, loyal, driven, and motivated. However, when McCall and Lombardo started to dig deeper into the data, they found clear differences. For instance, derailed managers had a narrow focus about business, whereas successful managers performed well in a variety of assignments. Derailed managers could not handle pressure and stress well and were defensive when it came to their mistakes. Successful executives showed poise under pressure; they admitted and even learned from their mistakes. Derailed managers had relationship problems, whereas successful managers worked well with all sorts of people.

From these interviews, McCall and Lombardo (1983) came up with reasons why people derailed. First, their strengths eventually became weaknesses. For example, independence could be a strength early in a career, but as a manager moved higher in the organization and reliance on others became more important, such independence became a weakness. Second, weaknesses early in a career were ignored. Derailed managers may have bullied others through force or intimidation to get things done early in their managerial careers. But as they moved higher in their organizations, their inability to properly manage and influence relationships led to their eventual downfall. Third, the success of derailed managers eventually went to their heads. They never received negative or constructive feedback, and they believed they were invincible. Then one day, they found out they were not invincible, and they could not recover in time. Finally, through no fault of their own, things just happened that made them derail. An economic downturn, a downsizing, a merger or acquisition, bad luck, or something outside their purview led to their eventual failure.

Subsequent derailment studies included a qualitative study of women (Morrison, White, and Van Velsor 1987); quantitative studies (Lombardo and McCauley 1988; Lombardo, Ruderman, and McCauley 1988), which became the impetus for Benchmarks (the Center for Creative Leadership’s multisource, or 360-degree, instrument, which includes a section dedicated to problem areas and behaviors associated with derailment; Benchmarks is a registered trademark of the Center for Creative Leadership); and a cross-cultural study on derailment (Leslie and Van Velsor 1996; Van Velsor and Leslie 1995). Across these studies covering two decades, five problem areas of derailed managers kept surfacing.

The Five Problem Areas of Derailed Leaders

The first problem area of derailed leaders was problems with interpersonal relationships. These leaders were described as working in isolation from their co-workers. They were the lone wolves in the organization. They were also described as authoritarian, cold, aloof, arrogant, and insensitive.

The second problem area of derailed leaders that kept surfacing was difficulty leading a team. Often, derailed leaders could not staff effectively and could not form and lead teams successfully. They picked the wrong people to be part of teams; they did not have an eye for talent. Their work teams had high turnover and were ineffective. Also, they failed to handle conflict within their teams.

The third problem area of derailed leaders was that they had difficulty changing or adapting. These derailed leaders could not easily adapt to a boss or superior with a different work or interpersonal style than theirs. Nor could these derailed leaders grow, learn, develop, or think strategically. As these managers rose higher in the ranks, they could not learn new things, they could not change their mindsets, they could not grow and develop new positions, and they could not become agile learners in terms of strategy.

Fourth, these derailed leaders failed to meet business objectives. They were described as poor performers. They were overly ambitious; they had great ideas and laid out ambitious plans, but lacked the follow-through to move their plans toward completion. Simply put, they could not achieve their goals, their numbers, or their obligations to the business.

The fifth and final problem area of derailed leaders was a functional orientation that was too narrow. These leaders were described as ill prepared for promotion. They could not supervise outside their current functions. A classic example was the high-performing, brilliant engineer. His work was so outstanding that he got promoted to management. But all his engineering skills could not compensate for his lack of the relationship orientation needed for management. His engineering orientation was too narrow for the broad management qualities he needed to be successful.

Avoiding Derailment

It is no wonder that one of every two managers is ineffective; many display behaviors in certain problem areas, including problems with interpersonal relationships, difficulty leading a team, difficulty changing or adapting, failure to meet business objectives, and too narrow a functional orientation. If a manager is displaying behaviors in these problem areas, does that mean that he or she is doomed to derailment and ultimate failure? In some cases, yes. Research shows that there are some personality characteristics or profiles that are linked to ineffective managers, managers who show derailment signs, or failed managers (for example, Cangemi, Miller, and Hollopeter 2002; Gentry, Mondore, and Cox 2007; Hogan and Hogan 2001; Moscoso and Salgado 2004). Because personality is usually set by adulthood, the likelihood of a manager’s changing his or her personality is rather small at best, and, therefore, some managers may be more likely to derail because of their personalities. This is all the more troubling because a personality trait such as narcissism that has been viewed as a negative trait for leaders to have (Judge, Lepine, and Rich 2006; Paunonen and others 2006) has been found to be linked to leaders that emerge from leaderless groups (Brunell and others 2008). In essence, personality traits such as narcissism may help people emerge as leaders, but could just as easily lead to their ultimate downfall.

Unlike personality, behaviors can change, assuming certain conditions are met. For example, the signs of derailment need to be discovered early. The behaviors that managers need to change must also be clear. In addition, the manager must be focused and motivated to make the changes, and must have support from the organization and/or a development professional. Ultimately, if given enough time, managers showing derailment behaviors can get off the track toward derailment and on a track toward a successful career. What follows is distilled from a host of recent research that has attempted to look into the predictors of derailment to help inform the field and give advice and strategies for managers seeking to avoid derailment.

One practical piece of advice for leaders trying to avoid derailment is to enhance their self-awareness. Leaders must not only understand whether they see themselves the way others see them, but also understand their strengths and weaknesses, and become aware of their work and life circumstances. For instance, many derailed leaders were unaware that they did not fit in well—with the demands of their jobs, their bosses and their managing/leading styles, the people around them, or the directions of their organizations—until it was too late (Leslie and Van Velsor 1996; Lombardo and Eichinger 2005; Lombardo and McCauley 1998). Managers should also take the time to become aware of situations that could trigger derailment, such as work overload, major life or career transitions, or boredom (Dotlich and Cairo 2003). Managers can increase their self-awareness and get off the track toward derailment by

• reflecting on life-shaping moments (Van Velsor, Moxley, and Bunker 2004)
• using executive coaches (Rosinski 2003; Wales 2003)
• using mentors (Couzins and Beagrie 2005)
• taking personality tests (Baillie 2004; Couzins and Beagrie 2005; McCarthy and Garavan 1999)
• journaling (Loo 2002; Van Velsor, Moxley, and Bunker 2004).

Another way to enhance self-awareness is through feedback. Leaders don’t always know whether they display derailment behaviors; as recent research has shown, leaders are not in alignment with how others view their derailment tendencies (Gentry and others 2008; Gentry and others 2007). This is especially true for managers at the highest managerial levels (Sala 2003; Gentry and others 2007), who often are out of touch with how they are perceived by others (Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee 2001), are more arrogant, or may surround themselves with those who are less willing to give truthful, straightforward feedback (Conger and Nadler 2004; Dotlich and Cairo 2003; Kaplan, Drath, and Kofodimos 1987; Kovach 1986; Kramer 2003; Levinson 1994). In short, managers continually believe they are less likely to show derailment signs than their peers, those who report directly to them, and bosses believe.

To avoid derailment, Lombardo and Eichinger (2005) believed, managers must openly receive honest, constructive developmental feedback. By using this feedback from various sources internal and external to the organization, both formally and informally, managers can avoid derailment by developing new strengths, focusing less on the technical matters that got them promoted early in their careers and more on leadership roles that will get them promoted later in their careers, being less controlling of their work and of others and more accepting of ambiguity (which is apparent at higher levels of organizations), being less promotion oriented and more oriented toward problem solving, being less emotionally volatile and more emotionally stable and composed, and becoming more aware of their interpersonal impact on others.

Another important piece of advice is to have a mindset of learning and to be willing to improve. In a study of 173 U.S. college and university administrators, Gentry, Katz, and McFeeters (2009) showed that administrators who understood their strengths and weaknesses and were willing to improve were less likely to display derailment behaviors. Willingness to improve comes with being open to learning new things and having a learning orientation. Managers must try to develop new strengths, learn from their management experiences, handle mistakes and failures by admitting them and learning from them, and become active learners by avoiding past habits to be better equipped to make transitions and deal with novel, challenging situations (Lombardo and Eichinger 2005).

Managers also need to foster relationships and get support from others to lessen others’ perceptions that they are displaying behavioral indicators of derailment or to avoid derailment completely. Managers who felt more support from their supervisors and co-workers were less likely to show derailment signs (Gentry, Lambert, and Mondore 2007). A study by Gentry and Shanock (2008) found that positive relationships can lessen the perception of derailment behaviors. Specifically, they found that working effectively with members of upper management and having a good relationship with them helped the managers treat those who reported directly to them in a warm and caring manner, putting them at ease. Ultimately, this led to managers’ being seen as less likely to show derailment behaviors. In essence, when managers effectively work with the management team above them and give support to those below them, there are lessened perceptions of derailment behaviors.

Therefore, managers need to try and improve their relationship with members of upper management. They need to meet regularly with upper management and become comfortable and confident around them. They need to get to know those in upper management on a personal level and network with them. Managers need to discover how those in top management think and behave, and attempt and practice influence tactics (that is, managing up) with them. Leaders must also treat their subordinates well, put them at ease, help them, and support them.

Leaders who adopt or enhance certain managerial skills can also be seen as less likely to show derailment signs. For instance, leaders who were more successful at exemplifying the skill of participative management (that is, using effective listening skills and communication to involve others, build a consensus, and influence others in decision making) were rated by their bosses as more successful and less likely to display the characteristics and behaviors associated with derailment (Cox and others 2008). To avoid derailment, managers should therefore try to improve their communication skills, foster collaboration, learn how to build a consensus, and give voice to others in the decision-making process. Also, leaders who are more politically skilled—defined as having “the ability to effectively understand others at work and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or organizational objectives” (Ferris and others 2005, 127)—are seen as less likely to show derailment signs (Loeb 2008). To avoid derailment, leaders should enhance their political skill by building networks, becoming perceptive observers and discerners of people and situations, practicing influence skills, and acting with true sincerity.

Finally, leaders who are less likely to show derailment signs have a good balance between work and life. Recent research has shown that leaders rated higher in work/life balance were seen as less likely to show derailment behaviors than leaders rated lower in work/life balance (Lyness and Judiesch 2008). This might lend evidence toward the fact that organizations may consider a manager’s perception of work/life balance when discussing and planning for career-related decisions and opportunities. Further, it gives credence to the foundation of programs implemented to help managers balance their work and nonwork responsibilities and activities, and thus the results of this research should encourage organizations to help managers lead more balanced lives.

When Derailment Happens: How to Get Back on Track

It is true that despite all these pieces of good advice, managers have derailed, can derail, and continue to derail. But it should also be uplifting to know that derailment does not mean that the manager is beyond hope for the rest of his or her career (Shipper and Dillard 2000). In fact, Kovach (1989) noted that several managers who had derailed in a past situation went on to succeed in a new situation. Therefore, when a manager derails, Kovach believes the manager should take a career slowdown and reflect on who he or she is as a person, including strengths, weaknesses, and key lessons from the experience. More recently, Sonnenfeld and Ward (2008) studied derailed managers and executives who eventually recovered. They found that those who successfully came back from their derailment episode faced up to the issue or mistake, sought new opportunities through their networks and mentors, paid attention to the people involved in the derailment experience (including family and friends), restored their leader image, rebuilt trust and credibility, and started fresh by taking a new leadership role or starting a new venture.

Conclusion

This chapter has attempted to show just how prevalent managerial ineffectiveness can be. Many times, these ineffective managers who eventually failed had all the makings of success, but they eventually derailed because of problems with interpersonal relationships, difficulty leading a team, difficulty changing or adapting, failure to meet business objectives, and too narrow a functional orientation. The odds are that you know a manager with problems like these, or worse, that you may be on a track to becoming one of them or are already there. By knowing the tips and strategies and understanding the advice from this chapter, you may help others take precautionary actions to avert derailment, or get yourself off a track toward derailment and back on a track toward your own career success.

Further Reading

W. A. Gentry and C. T. Chappelow, “Managerial Derailment: Weaknesses That Can Be Fixed,” in The Perils of Accentuating the Positives, ed. R. B. Kaiser. Tulsa: Hogan Press, 2009.

Jean Brittain Leslie and Ellen Van Velsor, A Look at Derailment Today: North America and Europe. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership, 1995.

M. M. Lombardo and R. W. Eichinger, Preventing Derailment: What to Do before It’s Too Late. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership, 2005.

Morgan W. McCall Jr. and Michael M. Lombardo, Off the Track: Why and How Successful Executives Get Derailed. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership, 1983.

References

Baillie, S. 2004. Know Thyself. Profit 23: 107–108. Bentz, V. J. 1985a. Research Findings from Personality Assessment of Executives. In Personality Assessment in Organizations, ed. J. H. Bernardin and D. A. Bownas. New York: Praeger.

———. 1985b. A View of the Top: A Thirty-Year Perspective of Research Devoted to the Discovery, Description and Prediction of Executive Behavior. Paper presented at annual convention of American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.

Bray, D. W., R. J. Campbell, and D. L. Grant. 1974. Formative Years in Business. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bray, D. W., and A. Howard. 1983. The AT&T Longitudinal Studies of Managers. In Longitudinal Studies of Adult Psychological Development, ed. K. W. Shaie. New York: Guilford Press.

Brunell, A. B., W. A. Gentry, W. K. Campbell, B. J. Hoffman, K. W. Kuhnert, and K. G. DeMarree. 2008. Leader Emergence: The Case of the Narcissistic Leader. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34: 1663–1676.

Cangemi, J., R. Miller, and T. Hollopeter. 2002, Winter. When Leadership Fails: Lessons Learned in the ’90s and New Directions for 2000 and Beyond. Organization Development Journal 20, no. 4: 8–17.

Charan, R. 2005. Ending the CEO Succession Crisis. Harvard Business Review 83: 72–81.

Conger, J. A., and D. A. Nadler. 2004. When CEOs Step Up to Fail. MIT Sloan Management Review 45, no. 3 (Spring): 50–56.

Couzins, M., and S. Beagrie. 2005. How to . . . Develop Your Self-Awareness. Personnel Today, May 17, 31.

Cox, B. D., W. A. Gentry, T. E. Sparks, S. P. Mondore, and K. W. Kuhnert. 2008, April. Participative Management as an Indicator of Managerial Success and Derailment. Poster session presented at Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology conference, San Francisco.

Dotlich, D. L., and P. C. Cairo. 2003. Why CEOs Fail: The 11 Behaviors That Can Derail Your Climb to the Top—and How to Manage Them. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fernandez-Araoz, C. 1999. Hiring without Firing. Harvard Business Review 77: 109–120.

Ferris, G. R., D. C. Treadway, R. W. Kolodinsky, W. A. Hochwarter, C. J. Kacmar, C. Douglas, and D.

D. Frink. 2005. Development and Validation of the Political Skill Inventory. Journal of Management 31: 126–152.

Finkelstein, S. 2004. Why Smart Executives Fail. New York: Portfolio.

Finkin, E. F. 1991. Techniques for Making People More Productive. Journal of Business Strategy 12 (March–April): 53–56.

Gabarro, J. J. 1987. The Dynamics of Taking Charge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Gentry, W. A., P. W. Braddy, J. W. Fleenor, and P. J. Howard. 2008. Self-Observer Rating Discrepancies on the Derailment Behaviors of Hispanic Managers. Business Journal of Hispanic Research 2, no. 1: 76–87.

Gentry, W. A., K. M. Hannum, B. Z. Ekelund, and A. de Jong. 2007. A Study of the Discrepancy Between Self- and Observer-Ratings on Managerial Derailment Characteristics of European Managers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 16: 295–325.

Gentry, W. A., R. B. Katz, and B. McFeeters. 2009. The Continual Need for Improvement to Avoid Derailment: A Study of College and University Administrators. Higher Education Research and Development 28: 335–348.

Gentry, W. A., T. A. Lambert, and S. P. Mondore. 2007, November. The Influence of Social Support on Managerial Effectiveness: Age as a Moderator. Paper presented at Southern Management Association Meeting, Nashville.

Gentry, W. A., S. P. Mondore, and B. D. Cox. 2007. An Exploratory Study of Managerial Derailment Characteristics and Personality Preferences. Journal of Management Development 26: 857–873.

Gentry, W. A., and L. R. Shanock. 2008. Views of Managerial Derailment from Above and Below: The Importance of a Good Relationship with Upper Management and Putting People at Ease. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 38: 2469–2494.

Gillespie, N. A., M. Walsh, A. H. Winefield, J. Dua, and C. Stough. 2001. Occupational Stress in Universities: Staff Perceptions of the Causes, Consequences, and Moderators of Stress. Work and Stress 15: 53–72.

Goleman, D., R. Boyatzis, and A. McKee. 2001. Primal Leadership: The Hidden Driver of Great Performance. Harvard Business Review 79: 42–51. Hogan, R., G. J. Curphy, and J. Hogan. 1994. What We Know about Leadership: Effectiveness and Personality. American Psychologist 49: 493–504.

Hogan, R., and J. Hogan. 2001. Assessing Leadership: A View of the Dark Side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 9: 40–51.

Hogan, R., and R. B. Kaiser. 2005. What We Know about Leadership. Review of General Psychology 9: 169–180.

Hogan, R., R. Raskin, and D. Fazzini. 1990. The Dark Side of Charisma. In Measures of Leadership, ed. K. E. Clark and M. B. Clark. West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.

Judge, T. A., J. A. LePine, and B. L. Rich. 2006. Loving Yourself Abundantly: Relationship of the Narcissistic Personality to Self- and Other Perceptions of Workplace Deviance, Leadership, and Task and Contextual Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 91: 762–776.

Kaplan, R. E., W. H. Drath, and J. R. Kofodimos. 1987. High Hurdles: The Challenge of Executive Self-Development. Academy of Management Executive 1: 195–205.

Kotter, J. P. 1982. The General Managers. New York: Free Press.

Kovach, B. E. 1986. The Derailment of Fast-Track Managers. Organizational Dynamics 15: 41–48.

———. 1989. Successful Derailment: What Fast-Trackers Can Learn While They’re Off the Track. Organizational Dynamics 18: 33–47.

Kramer, R. 2003. Recognizing the Symptoms of Reckless Leadership. Harvard Business Review 81, no. 10: 65.

Leslie, J. B., and E. Van Velsor. 1996. A Look at Derailment Today: North America and Europe. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Levinson, H. 1994. Beyond the Selection Failures. Consulting Psychology Journal 46: 3–8.

Loeb, M. 2008, January 14. Six Ways to Keep Your Career on Track. MarketWatch. http://www .marketwatch.com/story/six-ways-to-keep-your-career-on-track?dist=hplatest.

Lombardo, M. M., and R. W. Eichinger. 2005. Preventing Derailment: What to Do Before It’s Too Late. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Lombardo, M. M., and C. McCauley. 1988. The Dynamics of Managerial Derailment. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Lombardo, M. M., M. N. Ruderman, and C. D. McCauley. 1988. Explanations of Success and Derailment in Upper-Level Management Positions. Journal of Business and Psychology 2: 199–216.

Loo, R. 2002. Journaling: A Learning Tool for Project Management Training and Team-Building. Project Management Journal 33: 61–66.

Lyness, K. S., and, M. K. Judiesch. 2008. Can a Manager Have a Life and a Career? International and Multisource Perspectives on Work/Life Balance and Career Advancement Potential. Journal of Applied Psychology 93: 789–805.

McCall, M. W., Jr., and M. M. Lombardo. 1983. Off the Track: Why and How Successful Executives Get Derailed. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

McCarthy, A. M., and T. N. Garavan. 1999. Developing Self-Awareness in the Managerial Career Development Process: The Value of 360-Degree Feedback and the MBTI. Journal of European Industrial Training 23: 437–445.

Millikin-Davies, M. 1992. An Exploration of Flawed First-Line Supervision. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tulsa. Morrison, A, M., R. P. White, and E. Van Velsor. 1987. Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Can Women Reach the Top of America’s Largest Corporations? Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Moscoso, S., and J. F. Salgado, 2004. “Dark Side” Personality Styles as Predictors of Task, Contextual, and Job Performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 12: 356–362.

Paunonen, S. V., J. Lönnqvist, M. Verkasalo, S. Leikas, and V. Nissinen. 2006. Narcissism and Emergent Leadership in Military Cadets. Leadership Quarterly 17: 475–486.

Rogers, R. W., and A. B. Smith. 2004. Spotting Executive Potential and Future Senior Leaders. Employment Relations Today 31, no. 1: 51–60.

Rosinski, P. 2003. Coaching across Cultures: New Tools for Leveraging National, Corporate, and Professional Differences. London: Nicholas Brealey.

Sala, F. 2003. Executive Blind Spots: Discrepancies between Self- and Other-Ratings. Consulting Psychology Journal 55: 222–229.

Sessa, V. I., R. B. Kaiser, J. K. Taylor, and R. J. Campbell. 1998. Executive Selection: A Research Report on What Works and What Doesn’t. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Shipper, F., and J. E. Dillard Jr. 2000. A Study of Impending Derailment and Recovery of Middle Managers across Career Stages. Human Resource Management 39: 331–345.

Shipper, F., and C. L. Wilson. 1992. The Impact of Managerial Behaviors on Group Performance, Stress, and Commitment. In Impact of Leadership, ed. K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, and D. P. Campbell. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Smart, B. 1999. Topgrading: How Leading Companies Win by Hiring, Coaching, and Keeping the Best People. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

———. 2005. Topgrading: How Leading Companies Win by Hiring, Coaching, and Keeping the Best People, rev. ed. New York: Portfolio.

Sonnenfeld, J., and A. Ward. 2008 . Firing Back: How Great Leaders Rebound after Career Disasters. Organizational Dynamics 37: 1–20.

Sorcher, M. 1985. Predicting Executive Success: What It Takes to Make It into Senior Management. New York: Wiley.

Van Velsor, E., and Leslie, J. B. 1995. Why Executives Derail: Perspectives across Time and Cultures. Academy of Management Executive 9, no. 4: 62–72.

Van Velsor, E., R. S. Moxley, and K. A. Bunker. 2004. The Leader Development Process. In The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development, 2nd edition, ed. C. Mc-Cauley and E. Van Velsor. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass and Center for Creative Leadership.

Wales, S. 2003. Why Coaching? Journal of Change Management 3: 275–282.

Wells, S. J. 2005. Diving In. HR Magazine 50: 54–59.

White, R. P., and D. L. DeVries. 1990. Making the Wrong Choice: Failure in the Selection of Senior-Level Managers. Issues and Observations 10, no.1: 1–6.

About the Author

William A. (Bill) Gentry is currently a senior research associate at the Center for Creative Leadership and an adjunct assistant professor in the leadership studies doctoral program at North Carolina A&T State University. He graduated summa cum laude from Emory University and received his MS and PhD in applied psychology (with a concentration in industrial-organizational psychology) from the University of Georgia. He has published (or has work forthcoming) in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Personnel Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Leadership Quarterly, and Journal of Leadership Studies.