Have definitely seen this occur and it is very irresponsible of any department or team to not have clear lines of personal and professional development that include, but do not require, advancement to positions of management after demonstrating talent as an individual contributor. Some make the transition (those with high EQ usually), but most do not. Or they emulate the failed methods of poor managers that led them in the past as they are not trained in finding their own personal style (or that there are multiple management styles available).
You're right about EQ as a marker of those likely to succeed. I also like the statement "include, but do not require". Advancement to management should never be perceived to be or actually be mandatory. It's just not for everyone, as we both know.
Have definitely seen this occur and it is very irresponsible of any department or team to not have clear lines of personal and professional development that include, but do not require, advancement to positions of management after demonstrating talent as an individual contributor. Some make the transition (those with high EQ usually), but most do not. Or they emulate the failed methods of poor managers that led them in the past as they are not trained in finding their own personal style (or that there are multiple management styles available).
You're right about EQ as a marker of those likely to succeed. I also like the statement "include, but do not require". Advancement to management should never be perceived to be or actually be mandatory. It's just not for everyone, as we both know.