We are setting people up to fail by promoting them into leadership without developing the skills they actually need. Let me explain the systemic problem.
The Broken Pattern
Engineer becomes senior based on technical excellence. Senior becomes tech lead based on technical excellence. Tech lead becomes manager based on technical excellence. At each level they struggle because we never taught them what they actually need.
The Reality
I have promoted 12 people into management. 4 thrived (33%), 4 struggled for 18 months then recovered (33%), 4 left or returned to IC (33%). That 33% failure rate is expensive and it is our fault, not theirs.
The Gap
We hire for: writing excellent code, technical expertise, solving technical problems, individual achievement.
We need them to do: strategic thinking, resource allocation, coaching, cross-functional collaboration, translating technical to business.
Completely different skill sets. And we provide almost no development path between them.
Where It Forms
Senior engineers: evaluated on code quality. Never taught business impact or strategic tradeoffs.
Staff/Principal: evaluated on architecture. Never taught to align architecture to business or articulate ROI.
Managers: evaluated on delivery. But never learned strategic thinking as ICs, so they struggle with priorities.
By the time someone becomes director, they are 10-15 years in without business acumen, strategic thinking, or executive communication.
The Burnout
Talented engineers we promoted without preparation: drowning in meetings, feeling like imposters, burning out from stress. Eventually move back to IC saying leadership was not for them. But really, we failed them.
What Is Needed
For senior engineers: business metrics, product strategy, articulating technical decisions in business terms, customer needs.
For staff/principal: connecting architecture to business, resource allocation, executive communication, cross-functional influence.
For managers: strategic frameworks, business finance, decision-making under uncertainty, culture building.
My Experiment: Strategist Track
For interested senior and staff engineers, I created a year-long program:
Q1: Business context - shadow product, attend board meetings, learn P&L, present feature using business metrics.
Q2: Strategic thinking - participate in planning, own priority decisions, present to executives, write executive brief.
Q3: Cross-functional leadership - lead initiative across product and design and engineering, manage stakeholders, navigate conflicts.
Q4: Teaching and influence - mentor on strategic thinking, build consensus through RFCs, present at all-hands.
Results
8 engineers through program. 5 said it changed their thinking. 3 promoted and performing well. 2 chose IC track (perfect). 0 burned out post-promotion.
The Question
Should strategic thinking be required for senior IC levels or only leadership track?
For: better ICs, healthier leadership pipeline, less us-vs-them.
Against: not everyone wants business strategy, creates pressure, might screen out brilliant technical people.
I genuinely do not know. But the current approach of promoting technical experts without strategic development is failing too many people.
Thoughts?