I feel like the CEO could have changed tactics a bit to avoid the visceral response Steve experienced. Instead of assuming that he wasn't the right person for the job, he could have just said that the approach needed to shift. He ended up making it personal. The fact that Steve had to ask if he could be the person (irrespective of the CEO saying he could be a candidate and finding him a coach), is the problem. The CEO should have lead with "you've done a great job, and here's what we'll need from you to take things to the next level". That makes it more about trying to help him grow into the person the company needed by finding the coach, and only then deciding whether or not he needed to search for a new candidate. And it seems like the employee would have a better understanding at that point of what was needed and if he/she could live up to those responsibilities and expectations. While it was a story about personal growth, it feels more like a failure of leadership to me.

That title really never came to fruition in the article. The article was fairly accurate, but focused much more on why jobs change and how to process it, and did not really address how to stay in a job once it outpaces you, nor the more important question of why you would want to in the first place.

I've found that career growth comes from playing with the concept of being a big fish in a small pond. Don't fret over how big you are, just keep moving to bigger ponds. Or if your pond is growing, stay there while it grows. At some point, you'll be in a bigger pond/company than you want to be in... that is the time to go become a bigger fish. Find the smallest pond you can and be bigger there.

Basically, Don't try to keep pace with a growing pond... just be yourself. Then deliberately shrink your pond when you want to grow. Having that attitude of just being yourself also resolves the change management described in the article.