When Responsibility Comes Before Recognition

Nov 12, 2026 • 7 Min Read

Source:
Nathaniel Abadji from Unsplash

Why Organisations Often Overlook the Leaders They Already Depend On

A general manager who had led a hotel for nine years departed unexpectedly. Within half an hour, he was gone. As the second-in-command, I suddenly found myself responsible for an entire operation. There had been no planned transition, no structured handover and no opportunity to prepare for the circumstances that had unfolded. One of the directors happened to be visiting the property that day. He walked into my office and said something I have never forgotten:

Alok, I hope you don’t have any plans of taking leave in the near future.

From his perspective, perhaps it was a practical concern. The organisation needed someone to remain in place and maintain continuity. But from mine, it revealed something significant about how organisations sometimes approach leadership. There was no initial conversation about the additional responsibilities I was assuming, the support I might require, or how the organisation intended to help me navigate the transition. The immediate concern was whether I would remain available. That experience stayed with me because it illustrated a contradiction I would encounter more than once during my career: organisations can demonstrate tremendous confidence in someone’s ability to carry responsibility while showing remarkably little interest in developing or supporting that ability.

And the problem often begins long before anyone is formally promoted.

The Leadership That Already Exists

In many organisations, the person occupying the second-highest position carries responsibilities that extend well beyond their formal job description. They cover the leader’s absences, resolve operational problems, make difficult decisions and ensure continuity when unexpected situations arise. Sometimes these arrangements last a few days. Sometimes they extend into weeks or even months. Yet the organisation may continue to regard these contributions as routine elements of the person’s existing position rather than evidence of emerging leadership capability.

In my case, I had already been with the hotel for approximately fourteen months when the general manager departed. During that period, I had covered his absences on several occasions, including periods extending up to six weeks. I had effectively been performing significant elements of the general manager’s role long before the position became vacant. Nevertheless, when the vacancy arose, the organisation initially considered an external recruitment exercise. I was even asked to prepare the advertisement for the position. There is nothing inherently wrong with external recruitment. Organisations have legitimate reasons for comparing candidates, introducing fresh perspectives and ensuring that senior appointments are made carefully. But the situation raised an important question.

If someone has already demonstrated the ability to assume substantial responsibilities during repeated absences, shouldn’t that experience form part of an organisation’s assessment of its existing leadership potential? Eventually, I approached the chairman and asked whether my performance had met expectations. When he confirmed that it had, I explained the responsibilities I had already undertaken and the practical advantages of appointing someone familiar with the operation, its people and its operating environment. As we spoke, it became apparent that he had not fully appreciated the extent of my previous acting responsibilities.

Following discussions with the board, I was offered a staged transition into the position, with an initial salary adjustment and a probationary period before receiving the full appointment and remuneration package. The arrangement ultimately worked. But it left me wondering how many capable employees remain overlooked simply because nobody has systematically examined what they are already contributing.

When Recognition Becomes Conditional

Another experience revealed a related problem. While working as a senior hotel executive, I regularly assumed responsibility for the operation during my general manager’s absences. Some absences were planned. Others were entirely unexpected, including a serious medical emergency and an immigration complication that prevented his return to the country for several additional weeks. My general manager recognised the contributions I made and spoke positively about my performance. Unfortunately, that appreciation did not consistently translate into recognition from the broader organisation. Instead, senior executives frequently focused on problems they believed had occurred during his absence. When he returned, he would often face lengthy discussions about my perceived shortcomings.

The conversations were rarely framed around what had been successfully managed, which additional capabilities I had demonstrated, or where further development might strengthen my performance. There is an important distinction here. Holding someone accountable for mistakes is entirely appropriate. Greater responsibility must come with accountability. But accountability without constructive development is an incomplete approach to leadership. An individual temporarily assuming a more senior position will inevitably encounter unfamiliar circumstances. Some decisions may be imperfect. Others may require judgement that can only be refined through experience. A developmental organisation recognises these situations as opportunities to strengthen future leaders.

A purely fault-focused organisation risks teaching employees that accepting additional responsibility simply exposes them to additional criticism. What made my experience particularly revealing was what happened later. After years of receiving little meaningful recognition from senior management, I was approached about a difficult regional management vacancy. Suddenly, my contributions were being acknowledged enthusiastically. The organisation even offered an additional week’s holiday, including return airfares to Singapore, without affecting my accumulated leave entitlement. It was a generous gesture. But the timing was difficult to ignore. The same contributions that had attracted relatively little acknowledgement over several years were suddenly being highlighted when the organisation needed someone willing to accept a challenging assignment.

I cannot know the intentions behind those decisions. However, the experience demonstrated how differently recognition can be perceived depending on when and why it is offered.

Recognition carries greater credibility when it is consistent, rather than appearing primarily when an organisation needs something from an employee.

Promotion Is Not the Same as Development

A third experience reinforced the consequences of this approach. In another organisation, I had progressively assumed responsibilities that would normally have belonged to my general manager. When I eventually received the position, the accompanying salary increase was marginal. More concerning was the absence of meaningful guidance about expectations, priorities and the transition itself. I was expected to perform the role, but there was little structured discussion about how success would be assessed or what support would be available. When the annual performance appraisal arrived, I encountered extensive criticism about matters that, in my view, should have been addressed through earlier discussions and ongoing guidance. Eventually, I resigned.

This illustrates a cost that organisations do not always recognise when evaluating their leadership practices. The consequence of inadequate support is not necessarily immediate operational failure. Sometimes the employee continues delivering results, absorbing pressure and compensating for gaps in organisational support. The cost becomes apparent only when that employee disengages, loses confidence in the organisation or decides to leave. Recruiting a replacement then introduces further costs, disruption and potential loss of institutional knowledge. The organisation may have succeeded in filling a vacancy, yet failed to retain the person it appointed.

Leadership Development Must Begin Before the Vacancy

These experiences have shaped my thinking about how organisations identify and develop leaders. Succession planning should not begin with an unexpected resignation. Nor should leadership development be limited to formal training programmes or activities introduced after someone receives a new title. Some of the strongest evidence of leadership potential emerges through everyday operational responsibilities. An employee who successfully manages a difficult situation, coordinates multiple teams during a prolonged absence or makes sound decisions under pressure is providing valuable information about their capabilities. The challenge is ensuring that organisations actually recognise and use that information. This requires deliberate attention to several practices.

First, make existing contributions visible. Acting appointments and temporary expansions of responsibility should be documented, reviewed and considered during talent and succession discussions. Senior management should understand not merely who occupies each position, but who has demonstrated the capacity to assume greater responsibilities.

Second, treat acting responsibilities as developmental opportunities. Before someone assumes a more senior role, establish the extent of their authority, the decisions they can make independently and the support available when difficult situations arise.

Third, evaluate performance constructively. A discussion following an acting assignment should examine what was achieved, which decisions were effective, where challenges arose and what development would strengthen future performance.

Fourth, recognise contributions consistently. Appreciation need not always involve financial rewards or immediate promotion. Meaningful acknowledgement, professional development, exposure to senior decision-making and honest career discussions can demonstrate that an organisation values an employee’s contribution.

Finally, ensure that increased accountability is accompanied by appropriate authority, support and a fair assessment of responsibilities.

None of this means that every capable second-in-command should automatically receive the next promotion. Performance in an acting capacity is important evidence, but organisations must still consider readiness, suitability, longer-term potential and the requirements of the position. Employees also have a responsibility to communicate their ambitions, seek feedback and participate actively in their own development. However, that individual responsibility does not relieve organisations of their obligation to recognise and cultivate the capability already present within their teams.

The Question Organisations Should Ask

Looking back, what stands out about these experiences is not simply the absence of recognition or the difficulty of particular assignments. It is the difference between depending on someone’s leadership and deliberately investing in it. Organisations often discover, during unexpected circumstances, that certain employees are capable of considerably more than their formal positions suggest. But that discovery should not have to wait for a crisis. And once those capabilities become apparent, the organisation’s responsibility extends beyond ensuring that operations continue uninterrupted. It must ask how those capabilities can be strengthened, recognised and developed for the future.

The real measure of an organisation’s commitment to leadership development is not how quickly it finds someone to take charge when a vacancy arises. It is how effectively it has recognised, prepared and supported its potential leaders long before that moment arrives. Because the people an organisation turns to when everything goes wrong may already be demonstrating the leadership it needs for everything to go right.