The Leadership Development Paradox: Why Some CEOs Fear Creating Better Leaders

"A CEO who does not train and develop his next line to be better than him is an insecure manager and weak leader."

This statement, while harsh, cuts to the heart of a fundamental leadership challenge that manifests differently across cultures and contexts. While Western management literature celebrates leaders who develop strong successors, the reality in many organizations—particularly in Sri Lankan business environments—reveals a more complex and troubling pattern.

Two Sides of the Leadership Coin

The Ideal: Leaders Who Build Leaders

The best leaders understand that their legacy isn't measured by how indispensable they remain, but by how capable they make their organizations without them. Consider the legendary approach of Jack Welch at General Electric, who famously developed so many successful leaders that GE became known as a "CEO factory." These leaders operated from a position of confidence—they knew their value wasn't threatened by developing others because their contribution went beyond just filling a role.

In the Sri Lankan context, we occasionally see this in family businesses where founders genuinely prepare the next generation, or in multinational subsidiaries where global best practices drive systematic leadership development. These leaders ask questions like: "Who on my team could potentially run this better than I do?" and "What experiences do they need to get there?"

The Reality: The Insecurity Trap

However, coaching experience across Sri Lankan organizations reveals a different pattern. Many CEOs and senior leaders actively—though often unconsciously—limit their teams' development. They may provide training on technical skills or operational knowledge, but rarely on strategic thinking, decision-making, or the kind of leadership capabilities that would truly prepare someone for the top role.

Case Study: The Protective CEO Consider a CEO of a mid-sized Sri Lankan company who rose through family connections and decades of tenure rather than standout performance. During leadership coaching sessions, when asked about succession planning, he consistently deflects: "My team isn't ready for that level of responsibility yet." When pressed on development plans, he focuses on sending them for technical certifications rather than strategic leadership programs. The underlying fear is clear—if he develops someone with better analytical skills or strategic vision, his own limitations become apparent.

Case Study: The Knowledge Hoarder Another pattern emerges with leaders who maintain power by being the sole repository of critical information. A managing director of a family business keeps all key client relationships personally managed, never allowing senior managers to build direct relationships. Board meeting presentations are always done by him alone. When team members show initiative or innovative thinking, they're redirected to "focus on execution" rather than strategy. The result? A capable team that remains perpetually junior in capability.

The Sri Lankan Context: Why This Pattern Persists

Several cultural and structural factors make this leadership insecurity particularly pronounced in Sri Lankan organizations:

The Path to Power

Many current leaders reached their positions through networks, family connections, or simple tenure rather than merit-based competition. This creates an underlying vulnerability—they know they weren't necessarily the best qualified candidate and developing someone truly competent feels like inviting unfavorable comparisons.

Hierarchical Culture

Traditional respect for authority and age can create environments where questioning or surpassing seniors feels culturally inappropriate. Leaders exploit this by framing their protective behavior as maintaining proper hierarchy rather than acknowledging their insecurity.

Status and Face-Saving

In a culture where professional status directly impacts social standing, losing ground to a subordinate can feel like a fundamental threat to identity. The fear isn't just professional—it's deeply personal.

Economic Uncertainty

In smaller economies with limited opportunities, leadership positions feel more precious and precarious. The scarcity mindset reinforces hoarding behaviors.

Post-Colonial Complexity

There can be underlying feelings of inferiority about capabilities compared to international standards, leading to overcompensation through tight control rather than confidence-building through development.

The Hidden Cost of Leadership Insecurity

Organizations led by insecure leaders pay a heavy price:

• Innovation Stagnation: When strategic thinking is concentrated at the top, organizations lose the diverse perspectives that drive innovation

• Talent Flight: Capable people eventually leave for opportunities where they can grow

• Succession Crises: When leaders eventually retire or leave, there's no one prepared to step up

• Decision-Making Bottlenecks: Everything must flow through the top, slowing responsiveness

• Cultural Mediocrity: Teams learn that ambition and excellence are threats rather than assets

Real Impact Example: A technology company saw three of its brightest managers leave within six months after the CEO consistently blocked their proposals for new service lines, kept them out of client meetings, and refused to include them in strategic planning sessions. The CEO's comment: "They were getting too big for their boots." The company lost institutional knowledge, client relationships, and had to recruit externally at much higher costs.

Breaking the Insecurity Cycle

For Individual Leaders

Self-Awareness First: Honest self-reflection about how you reached your position and what genuine value you bring beyond positional authority.

Reframe Success: Measure your success by organizational capability growth, not just by maintaining control.

Invest in Your Own Development: Leaders confident in their own growth are less threatened by others' development.

Create Succession Metrics: Make developing successors a formal part of your performance evaluation.

For Organizations

Merit-Based Progression: Implement clear, competency-based promotion criteria that reduce the likelihood of insecure leaders reaching top positions.

360-Degree Feedback: Regular feedback systems that include questions about leadership development and team empowerment.

Board Accountability: Boards should specifically evaluate leaders on their succession planning and team development outcomes.

Cultural Shift: Celebrate leaders who develop other leaders, making it a recognized competitive advantage.

The Path Forward

The question isn't whether Sri Lankan leaders are capable of developing others—they absolutely are. The question is whether they're secure enough in their own value to do so. This requires both individual courage and organizational systems that reward the right behaviors.

The most successful organizations of the next decade will be those led by people confident enough to make themselves replaceable—and excellent enough that being replaceable becomes their greatest achievement.

True leadership strength isn't measured by how much you're needed, but by how well things run when you're not there. In the Sri Lankan context, this mindset shift could unlock tremendous organizational potential that's currently constrained by leadership insecurity.

The choice is clear: continue the cycle of protective mediocrity or embrace the courage to build something bigger than yourself. The leaders who choose the latter won't just transform their organizations—they'll transform the business culture of the country.

What patterns of leadership development—or lack thereof—have you observed in your organization? The conversation about building confident, development-focused leadership starts with honest acknowledgment of where we are now.