Four Reasons Great Instructional Designers Struggle When They Start Leading

Instructional designers are often promoted because they deliver strong learning solutions: clear analysis, high-quality design, and reliable execution. But moving from “excellent designer” to “effective leader” is not a simple step up; it is a shift into a different kind of work with different expectations. Houareau (2026) describes a gap between common instructional design competency benchmarks and the leadership skills instructional designers need in practice, noting a misalignment between what is taught and what is required on the job.

At the same time, research on instructional design teams suggests that organizational structures and role perceptions can either empower or constrain instructional designers’ ability to function as leaders, regardless of talent. Drysdale (2021) found that certain structures contributed to role misperception and disempowerment, affecting designers’ leadership influence.

The following four reasons explain why the transition is hard, even for highly capable instructional designers, and why the problem is often a systems-and-support issue rather than a talent issue.

1) The “Leadership Gap”: Design Competence ≠ Leadership Competence

A key reason great instructional designers struggle when they start leading is that instructional design frameworks and preparation programs often prioritize technical and design competencies more than leadership capability development. Houareau (2026) explicitly identifies a “notable gap” in leadership skills within industry benchmarks and points to a mismatch between academic preparation and workplace leadership demands.

This gap means new ID leaders may be stepping into roles that require skills they have not been intentionally trained to build, particularly around influencing, coaching, and leading change through others. Shaw (2015) positions instructional designers as strong leadership candidates because they combine technical and conceptual skills while working collaboratively, but also frames leadership as vision-setting and trust-building, capabilities that extend beyond design execution.

In practice, the promotion is often a recognition of design excellence, while the job is about people leadership and organizational influence. Houareau (2026) also notes that instructional designers often learn leadership competencies “through on-the-job experience,” which can create avoidable strain and slower development.

2) The Identity Shift: From “Expert Who Solves” to “Leader Who Enables”

Leadership requires an identity shift. Technical professionals who excel by providing solutions can struggle when success depends on helping others develop solutions. Multiple transition-focused leadership articles describe this “problem-solver to people-leader” shift as a common challenge for technical experts moving into management.

The same pattern appears in instructional design leadership discussions. Houareau’s (2026) work connects instructional design leadership competencies to transformational leadership practices, such as enabling others to act and encouraging the heart, emphasizing leadership as influence, empowerment, and community-building rather than simply task or output management.

When instructional designers become leaders, they may feel pressure to remain the “best designer in the room,” especially when their credibility has been built on technical mastery. Technical leadership commentary also describes a credibility fear, the feeling that respect depends on continuing to be the most technical person, while warning that this can lead to micromanagement and bottlenecks. So, the struggle is often internal and external: the leader must redefine success from “my work is excellent” to “my team grows and succeeds.”

3) Role Confusion and Structural Barriers: When Leadership Is Expected but Not Enabled

Even when an instructional designer has strong leadership instincts, the organization may not position them to lead effectively. Drysdale (2021) found that organizational structures influenced designers’ ability to act as leaders and reported that decentralized designers experienced disempowerment and role misperceptions, while some administrative reporting lines contributed to misperceptions about technology support.

This matters because leadership is not only about individual ability; it is also about authority, clarity, parity, and expectations. Drysdale (2021) highlights the importance of positional parity between instructional designers and faculty as part of empowering designers to be partners and leaders. In other words, many new ID leaders inherit responsibility for outcomes (quality, timelines, adoption, change) without the structural supports that make leadership possible (clear role definition, legitimate influence, aligned reporting).

4) The Burnout Trap: High Standards + High Demand + Limited Support

Another reason great instructional designers struggle when they start leading is the risk of burnout, especially when they are leading high performers or supporting large-scale change. Lowe (2025) notes that high performers can burn out even when engaged, citing evidence that burnout is widespread and that high performers are particularly vulnerable when effort is not sustainably managed.

In parallel, Goldsworthy (2024) describes leaders operating in “survival mode,” referencing a large dataset of leader inputs and emphasizing that the solution cannot simply be “work harder.” For instructional designers moving into leadership, the burnout risk can be amplified by:

• Increased meetings and stakeholder demands,

• Ongoing delivery deadlines,

• Pressure to maintain design quality,

• Emotional labor (coaching, conflict, change resistance),

• And unclear role boundaries (e.g., being treated as “support” while expected to drive strategy).

If leadership training and structural clarity are missing, new leaders may compensate by doing more themselves, which can temporarily reduce short-term risk but increase long-term burnout and reduce team capability growth.

What the Literature Suggests Leadership Must Become

Leadership scholarship in education has evolved across decades and continues to shift in how instructional leadership is conceptualized and enacted. Hallinger (2026) traces how instructional leadership has developed through pivot points shaped by theory, evidence, and context, including the rise of competing leadership models such as transformational and distributed leadership.

This is relevant for instructional designers because many leadership demands in learning organizations mirror these shifts: influence across systems, collaboration, culture-building, and designing conditions for instructional improvement. Houareau (2026) similarly aligns instructional design leadership competencies with transformational leadership practices (e.g., inspiring shared vision, enabling others to act, encouraging the heart), reinforcing the idea that modern ID leadership is not merely managerial; it is cultural and strategic.

---

If instructional designers are to thrive as leaders, organizations must stop assuming that design excellence automatically creates leadership readiness and must build both the capability and the conditions for leadership to succeed.

Reflection question:

What would change if your success as a leader were measured less by what you personally produce and more by what your team can sustain, improve, and lead without you?

---

References

• Drysdale, J. (2021). The story is in the structure: A multi case study of instructional design teams. Online Learning, 25(3), 57–80. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i3.2877

• Goldsworthy, S. (2024, June 25). The leadership burnout crisis and how to address it. IMD. https://www.imd.org/ibyimd/human-resources/the-leadership-burnout-crisis-and-how-to-address-it/

• Hallinger, P. (2026). Six pivot points in the evolution of instructional leadership research and practice, 1960–2025. Interchange. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-026-09556-7

• Houareau, T. (2026). A new era of instructional design leadership. Leonardo Institute. https://leonardo.institute/files/Tina-Houareau-PhD-New-Era-ID-Leadership.pdf

• Lowe, D. (2025, February 12). Why high performers burn out faster (and what to do about it). Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbescoachescouncil/2025/02/12/why-high-performers-burn-out-faster-and-what-to-do-about-it/

• Shaw, K. L. (2015). Leadership through instructional design in higher education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 18(3). https://ojdla.com/archive/fall153/shaw153.pdf

• (Optional contextual sources used for the “technical expert → manager” transition framing; these are practitioner articles rather than peer reviewed research.)

• Bridges, L. (2024, October 7). From problem solver to leader: Why technical managers struggle to step up & how to succeed. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/from-problem-solver-leader-why-technical-managers-struggle-bridges-dccre

• Peterson, A. (2025, December 31). From technical expert to people leader: Supporting the engineering leadership transition. Engineering Management Institute. https://engineeringmanagementinstitute.org/from-technical-expert-to-people-leader-supporting-the-engineering-leadership-transition/

• Tracey Brown, A. (2025, April 30). Why highly skilled technical experts struggleas managers. MOL Learn. https://www.mollearn.com/about/news/why-technical-experts-struggle-as-managers/