Are leaders projecting their own ambition onto employees?
By Chantelle Botha
WHAT if the real challenge in leadership is not whether people have potential, but whether we are willing to let their potential look different from our own?
I was watching The Good Doctor recently and came to the part where Drs Park and Reznick split up. At its core, it boiled down to misaligned definitions of potential.
Morgan wanted Alex to live up to what she believed was his full potential. Alex, however, was content with where he was. She interpreted that as a lack of ambition, while he experienced her ambition as unsustainable pressure.
It made me think about how often this dynamic plays out inside companies.
How many leaders become frustrated with team members because they are not pursuing the version of success the leader values? How many leaders themselves feel unseen because their definition of growth looks different to the one being projected onto them by their leaders?
Some people want promotion. Others want mastery. Some want visibility. Others want stability. Some are driven by status. Others by flexibility, creativity, or contribution.
Yet many companies still operate as though there is only one acceptable version of ambition.
When we discover potential in one of our people, it’s exciting to us, and completely natural to project our vision for corporate success onto that person.
Research in leadership psychology consistently shows that imposed goals reduce intrinsic motivation. A 2022 meta-analysis by Xue et al., found that empowering leadership styles increased intrinsic motivation, while controlling leadership reduced it. Studies on autonomy and psychological safety continue to show similar findings: people perform better when they have ownership over their growth and contribution.
In other words, people – both leaders and those being led – thrive when they feel they have agency over the direction of their lives and careers.
Potential is the capacity for growth – but growth looks different for different people.
One of the biggest mistakes leaders make is assuming everyone should want what they wanted at that stage of their career. In doing so, companies and leaders can unintentionally reward replicas instead of recognising diverse forms of contribution.
This is where disengagement creeps in. People who are trying to succeed inside someone else’s definition of success rarely sustain high performance. Strong leadership requires us to become more curious about what genuinely drives the people around us.
Of course, companies still require accountability and performance in line with agreed metrics. Leadership is not about endlessly adapting to every individual preference. But sustainable performance becomes far more likely when leaders understand the difference between capability issues and motivational misalignment. The goal is not to lower expectations, but to create environments where people can take ownership in ways that align both personal drivers and organisational outcomes.
When leaders understand what their people genuinely want, they can build growth paths that improve engagement, strengthen retention, and create more sustainable performance.
Perhaps that is the great potential debate: not whether people have potential, nor how we unlock potential in our teams – but whether we are willing to let others’ potential look different from our own.
This is the kind of conversation I facilitate with leadership teams looking to strengthen psychological safety and authentic motivation. Let’s talk if you’d like to unpack the difference between capability and motivational alignment.
Chantelle Botha, “The Permission Catalyst,” helps leaders and teams move from procrastination to permission by creating cultures where people feel safe to think, contribute, and grow.
https://phoenixconfidence.com/
chantelle@phoenixconfidence.com
