Four patterns, and a cultural difference worth noting
The Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) has documented leadership-derailment patterns for decades. Researchers Leslie and Van Velsor ran a systematic 1996 comparison of derailment causes between Europe and the United States: “problems with interpersonal relationships” topped both contexts, but with a telling gap — 64% in Europe versus 50% in the United States. “Failure to adapt” came second, with comparable figures in both. The widest gap appeared in “failure to build a team”: just 24% in Europe versus 40% in America.
This gap carries an important implication: leadership derailment isn’t a single, uniform, global phenomenon — it’s shaped partly by cultural and organizational context. In a Gulf work environment, where relationship networks, standing, and sensitivity to dignity play different roles than they do in the American or European contexts, the classic patterns need a local reading. Across more than 1,500 hours of coaching with more than 250 leaders in Riyadh, the recurring observation is that “interpersonal problems” here take a more precise shape: not an absence of relational skill, but an accumulation of courtesies left unsaid until they hardened into a silent distance between leader and team. The leader themselves senses that something has changed without being able to name it, because what changed wasn’t an event but a communication pattern that built up over months.
This cultural distinction has a direct practical consequence: a leadership-development program imported wholesale from Western literature might diagnose “weak team-building” in a Saudi leader when the actual issue is closer to an accumulation of silent courtesy that never turned into constructive candor. An accurate reading of the local pattern is the first requirement, before choosing an intervention tool.
Projection: the hardest marker to spot from the inside
Bovey and Hede later added that projection is statistically the strongest predictor of derailment before it happens, with a correlation of 0.32, and it’s the hardest to spot precisely because it makes the leader diagnose in others what is, in fact, their own pattern. A leader who repeatedly complains of “weak initiative” in their team, while having personally claimed every small decision for the past two years, is a textbook case. Projection isn’t discovered through self-reflection alone; it needs an external, neutral mirror with no stake in the relationship, because the mind that produced the pattern is the same one being asked to detect it.
Early warnings: what shows up in calm, and what only shows up under pressure
Some patterns are detectable early because they show up in everyday behavior under mild pressure: excessive control, relational withdrawal, over-criticism, excessive consensus-seeking, heightened sensitivity to criticism. But the patterns that prove themselves as genuine derailment indicators — projection chief among them — need a real, high-pressure moment to reveal themselves clearly: a public failure, a sudden sidelining, an organizational crisis, a loss of standing. This means a psychological assessment conducted during a period of stability may understate the severity of a pattern that only shows up clearly under exceptional pressure — precisely the moment when derailment becomes costly.
Psychological instruments, then, aren’t a crystal ball but probabilistic maps: they point to the areas most exposed to derailment and identify the conditions that might activate them. The real work begins when a development plan is built that teaches the leader to observe themselves in the moment of pressure, not just to know their pattern in a moment of calm. One simple question opens this door: in the three hardest situations you faced over the last three months, what did you find yourself blaming others for? The answer usually illuminates the actual defensive patterns more honestly than any psychological report produced during a period of stability.
Between a “problem employee” and a “derailing leader”
Both cases are costly to the organization, but the intervention mechanism is fundamentally different. The problem employee: a behavioral issue that can be described and corrected within the existing management framework — a performance conversation, resetting expectations, a corrective plan. The derailing leader: an entrenched pattern reinforced by promotion and accumulated success, requiring deeper investment in self-awareness and a fundamental redefinition of what “being successful” means. Confusing the two is common, and the danger is handling deep derailment as if it were a surface problem solvable with a single conversation — the same patterns then return within a few months, often at a higher cost, because the surrounding environment has lost confidence in the value of any further intervention.
What Hogan tools reveal — and what they don’t
Hogan instruments (HDS, HPI, MVPI) work at different levels: HDS captures derailment patterns under stress and reduced self-control, HPI measures everyday style in dealing with the world and other people, and MVPI reveals the deep underlying values that shape decisions without being stated outright. Development frameworks such as the PDI (Ninth House) guide translate this data into observable behaviors and measurable development goals, organizing leadership competencies into a behavioral framework that can be watched and developed rather than remaining an abstract psychological description.
But what no single psychological tool captures is contextual dynamics: how a given pattern expresses itself with a particular manager, in a specific sector’s culture, under exceptional pressure rather than in a period of stability. This contextual gap is exactly what makes coaching necessary after assessment, not optional; the tool describes the pattern and estimates its strength, but coaching explores where, how, with whom, and under what conditions this pattern actually shows up in the leader’s life. A simple exercise turns the psychological description from an abstract report into a living reference: picking one elevated score from a Hogan report and tying it to a specific situation that happened this week, not in the distant past.
Your direct manager shapes your development — or your derailment
A CCL study on the impact of managerial support on leadership development measured a telling gap: leaders who had their direct manager’s support scored 8.1 out of 10 on engagement and leadership effectiveness, versus 6.5 out of 10 for those who lacked it. And the effect went beyond the individual: 79% of organizations that provided effective leadership support reported improved overall organizational effectiveness, versus just 63% without it. This overturns a common institutional assumption that regards leadership development as an investment in the individual candidate alone, leaving their direct manager entirely out of the equation.
The hardest case is when the direct manager is themselves a contributing source of the derailment: quietly reinforcing certain behaviors, rewarding compliance and punishing challenge, or modeling a leadership style that reproduces the very same patterns. In that case, even the best development program won’t produce lasting change unless the environment the leader returns to is also addressed. If you’re the direct manager of a rising leader, the decisive question isn’t “did I send them to a development program?” but “does the environment they return to after each session reinforce what they’re learning, or quietly undo it?”
Four steps to start this week
Leadership derailment doesn’t begin with one big mistake; it begins with a silent accumulation of small signals ignored because their owner is successful. Review your last three moments of friction with your team, and ask: did I blame others for a pattern that might be my own? Ask for direct feedback from one person who isn’t afraid to be candid with you, not one inclined to please you. If you’re in a transitional period — a promotion, expanded responsibilities, a restructuring — design a space to examine your stress patterns before they become entrenched. Don’t wait for a crisis to ask for a neutral, external mirror; a crisis reveals the pattern, but at a far higher cost than prevention.
After 16 years in institutional leadership — including managing talent at a major government financial institution — and more than 1,500 hours of executive coaching with more than 250 leaders, the consistent observation is that leaders who ask for this mirror early are the ones who move past derailment before it turns into a career collapse.
Start with a free discovery session to begin reading your own leadership patterns.
Sources
Leslie, J. B., & Van Velsor, E. (1996). A Look at Derailment Today: North America and Europe. Center for Creative Leadership (CCL). — Bovey, W. H., & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organisational change: the role of defence mechanisms. Journal of Managerial Psychology. — Hogan Assessment Systems: Hogan Development Survey (HDS), Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI). — Personnel Decisions International (PDI / Ninth House): leadership-competency and behavioral-development frameworks. — Center for Creative Leadership (CCL): study on the impact of direct-manager support on the effectiveness of leadership-development programs.