Why Bad Results Don’t Stop Bad Promotions
- Bill Holmes
- Sep 19
- 3 min read
“In the business world, the rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield.” – Warren Buffett
“You can’t build a reputation on what you are going to do.” – Henry Ford
We’ve all had the thought: the people running this place don’t know what they’re doing. Sometimes it’s just workplace frustration. But sometimes, the evidence is right there in the headlines.
Take Bud Light’s marketing disaster. Sales plunged, the brand was dragged through the mud—and the executive behind it? Not disgraced. Just landed the same role at another company. Or look at Cracker Barrel’s attempt to modernize by tossing aside the very nostalgia that made it successful. Customers revolted, traffic fell, and the company scrambled to reverse course—while the executive stayed put. And then there’s Sonos, which gutted its app, rolled out a buggy replacement, and infuriated loyal customers. The CEO took the hit and stepped down, but the leaders tied to the botched rollout largely stayed. Different industries, same pattern: leaders who looked great in the room, even if they weren’t great on the job.
I saw the same thing up close. A colleague of mine recently stepped into my former executive role in compliance. He mentioned how impressed he was with someone who used to work for me. The funny part? I had once recommended that same person for a promotion. He was denied—not because of his track record, which was outstanding, but because of one bad interview.
That’s the flaw baked into so many organizations, including the IRS where I spent decades: we mistake performance art for performance. Smooth talkers who can “win the room” get rewarded, while consistent, proven leaders are sidelined for not sticking the landing in a scripted Q&A. And then people wonder why the executive bench looks so thin.
The truth is, we’re not selecting executives—we’re auditioning them. It’s as if the main qualification for leading a billion-dollar portfolio is whether you can charm a panel for 45 minutes. That doesn’t build a bench of leaders; it builds a cast of actors.
This isn’t to say interviews are useless. Communication matters. But when one shaky performance cancels out years of results, the process is upside down. I’ve personally witnessed leaders with quantitatively bad performance still land new roles. Trends moving in the wrong direction, teams disengaged, initiatives stalling—and somehow that gets overlooked because the story sounds good in the boardroom.
It’s the kind of logic only bureaucracy could love. We bench proven performers for one shaky interview, then hand the ball to someone who looked good under fluorescent lights but can’t deliver on the field. The result is predictable: organizations keep recycling the same executive mistakes, wondering why performance lags while the talent that could have fixed it was sitting on the sidelines the whole time.
Coda
Is it just me, or do things seem to be worse than they used to be? I went to a restaurant the other evening, and they were out of propane, so they couldn’t cook. Isn’t that a basic thing for a restaurant? How does that happen? As I type this, I am at a top tier hotel in Savannah, and in the gym, there are 4 treadmills. Only one works. What? I could go on and on with examples, but what is going on?
Comments