By Cade Murphy · Remergent

Picture your most decisive leader. The one who doesn’t wait for consensus, makes the call, and moves the team forward while everyone else is still debating. You promoted them, in part, because of that decisiveness. It’s rare, and it’s valuable.

Eighteen months later, people have started softening how they talk to this leader. Direct reports rehearse pushback before bringing it to them. Peers stop raising concerns in meetings and address them afterward, privately, with each other. The leader hasn’t changed what they value. They’re still moving fast, still making the call. But somewhere along the way, decisive became something else — and nobody wants to be the one to name it.

Nothing about this leader broke. Their best trait just got louder than the room could handle.

The Trait Doesn’t Change. The Volume Does.

This is the core finding behind the Hogan Development Survey (HDS), one of the more rigorous pieces of research in the assessment world: the behaviors that derail careers aren’t separate from a person’s strengths. They’re the same behaviors, turned up.

Someone with the everyday strength of being confident and assertive — Bold, in Hogan’s language — becomes stubborn, arrogant, and entitled under sustained stress or unchecked success. Someone who is careful and thorough — Cautious — becomes so risk-averse that decisions stall entirely. Someone who is detail-oriented and hardworking — Diligent — becomes a perfectionist who can’t stop double-checking other people’s work, which reads, eventually, as micromanagement.

The trait is constant. What changes is whether the person is still self-monitoring — actively managing how the trait shows up in the room — or has stopped. The research behind this framework is specific about when that happens: derailers surface under stress, boredom, complacency, or fatigue, the exact conditions where self-monitoring lapses. This is why derailers show up more in senior leaders, not less. More autonomy, less feedback, higher stakes: exactly the conditions that make self-monitoring hardest to sustain.

None of this makes a leader an outlier. In executive populations, the average leader has somewhere between two and three derailers elevated to a real risk level — not zero. A leader with one clearly overused strength isn’t broken. They’re typical. The pattern is just more visible at their altitude, with more people watching and less room to absorb the fallout.

This Isn’t a Character Flaw. It’s a Systems Signal.

The instinct, when a leader’s strength starts working against them, is to treat it as a personal failing — something to warn them about, manage around, or eventually replace. That instinct gets it backwards.

A derailer emerging is information. It’s the system telling you something about the conditions that leader is operating in — the pressure they’re under, the feedback they aren’t getting, the authority nobody is checking. The organization reacts to everything a leader projects, including what neither the leader nor the people around them are naming directly. A leader’s dark side rarely shows up because something is wrong with them. It shows up because the environment stopped providing the checks that used to keep the trait in range. This is exactly the territory real Leader Development work is supposed to occupy — not a personality label, but genuine work with the person underneath the pattern.

Treating the derailer as a character flaw makes the problem worse before it gets better. The leader either receives the feedback as an accusation — and gets defensive, which is itself a derailer pattern — or they overcorrect, suppressing the very trait that made them valuable in the first place. Neither response gets to the actual work, which is recalibration, not amputation.

“Just Manage Your Weaknesses” Misses the Point Entirely

Most leadership advice treats derailers as weaknesses to be fixed — as though the goal were to sand a confident leader down into someone permanently tentative, or to talk a diligent leader out of caring about quality. That’s not development. That’s asking someone to become less effective in the name of being less risky.

The actual work is narrower and harder: building enough self-awareness that a leader can recognize when a trait that usually serves them has crossed into serving no one — and enough judgment to dial it back in the moment, not after the damage is visible to everyone else. You can’t fake this kind of self-management, and you can’t install it with a single feedback conversation. It is built through repeated, honest encounters with how the leader is actually landing — not how they intend to land.

This is where an assessment like the HDS earns its keep: not as a label, but as evidence. It gives a leader language for a pattern they may have sensed but never named, and it gives a coach something concrete to work from instead of vague impressions.

What This Actually Looks Like in Coaching

Each piece of this adds something distinct. The assessment provides the insight — a clear, evidence-based read on a pattern the leader may have sensed but never had language for. A debrief adds perspective and context, translating that insight into the leader’s actual role, team, and moment in their career. Coaching is what turns both into development: the sustained work of building that insight into self-awareness, and that self-awareness into judgment that holds under real pressure.

The work that actually shifts behavior looks different. It starts with a relationship that already understands the leader’s context, so the assessment result lands as insight rather than indictment. It connects the pattern to specific, recent moments the leader can recognize in themselves.

The useful question a coach asks isn’t whether a trait is good or bad. It’s whether the pattern is actually showing up on the job right now — and if it is, how the leader is currently keeping it in check. A leader who can’t name a control strategy usually isn’t being evasive. They simply haven’t seen the pattern yet, which is exactly where coaching starts. From there, the work isn’t a one-time flag. It stays in place long enough to catch the pattern the next time it shows up, because a single conversation about a derailer doesn’t undo a habit built over a career. A coach who has tracked a leader over time can tell the difference between an isolated bad week and a pattern worth addressing directly — and that judgment only comes from accumulated context, not a single scorecard.

The Question Worth Asking

Think about the strongest leaders on your team right now — the ones whose talent isn’t in question. What is the trait everyone would name first if you asked what makes them good at their job? Now ask what that same trait looks like on their worst day, under real pressure, with nobody checking it.

That answer is usually sitting in plain sight once you go looking for it. It’s also one of the most useful, most coachable things about a leader you already believe in.

At Remergent, this is exactly what an ongoing coaching relationship is built to work with — not a single assessment result, but the pattern underneath it, understood clearly enough, early enough, to become one more thing a strong leader knows how to manage on purpose.

Assessment gives you the insight. A debrief gives it context. Coaching is what makes it last. If you’re ready to start that conversation for your bench, let’s talk.

---

Cade Murphy is the founder of Remergent and an ICF Professional Certified Coach. He works with leaders and organizations navigating high-stakes transitions — including the moment a leader’s greatest strength starts working against them.