Skip to content
← Back to Writing

The Accidental Manager

· 11 min read
management engineering-career leadership

The team’s velocity dropped first. Then the good engineers went quiet in standups. Then two of them left inside a month, and the culture survey came back with numbers nobody wanted to forward.

None of it was a mystery. The team had a new manager, a brilliant engineer six months earlier, who had no idea how to run a team and was quietly drowning. The work they understood, they micromanaged. The people problems they didn’t understand, they avoided. Standups turned into status interrogations. One-on-ones got canceled. The engineers who used to ship now waited on a bottleneck who reviewed everything and trusted no one.

The survey said all of this, in the polite language surveys use. It went up the chain. And upper management, looking at a team that was suddenly slower and unhappier, reached for the explanation that costs nothing: the team was the problem. Not the manager they had promoted without a second thought. Not the system that made that promotion the only reward on offer. The team.

That’s the tax most companies pay every quarter and never see on a balance sheet. It has a name. The accidental manager.

Two jobs that share a vocabulary

Here’s how it usually goes. An engineer is good. Really good. Ships clean code, mentors the juniors, earns respect without asking for it. A leadership role opens. The company promotes them, because of course it does. No interview for whether they can coach someone through a bad quarter. No check on whether they’ve ever had a hard conversation that wasn’t about a pull request. Just a new Slack channel and a calendar full of meetings nobody taught them to run.

This isn’t a character flaw. It’s a category error.

Being great at engineering and being great at managing engineers are two different jobs that happen to share a vocabulary. Related the way being a great chef is related to being great at eating. The inputs look familiar. The work is not. One job measures success in shipped features and solved problems. The other measures success in whether the people around you are growing, unblocked, and still here in a year.

The mistake was never promoting the engineer. The mistake was pretending the new role used the same muscles as the old one, and then offering nothing to build the new ones.

The numbers are worse than you’d guess

This is the part where I’m supposed to tell you it’s just anecdotal. It isn’t.

The Center for Creative Leadership found that almost 60% of new managers get no training at all when they step into their first leadership role.1 Most of them, in other words. You wouldn’t let an engineer push to production without a review. You’ll hand someone a team of six and a quarterly goal with nothing.

The bill for that comes due somewhere. Gallup pegs the cost of low engagement and poor management at around $8.8 trillion a year globally, roughly 9% of world GDP,2 with the US share alone running near $1.9 trillion in lost productivity.3 And when LinkedIn asked workers what would make them quit, nearly 7 in 10 said a bad manager.4 Ahead of pay, ahead of the work itself, the thing most likely to push someone out the door is the person they report to on Monday.

Here’s the part that should bother you most: the managers aren’t okay either. Gallup’s latest data shows managers are the group whose engagement is falling fastest. Faster than the people they manage, faster than the executives above them.5 They were handed a second job without a manual and they’re holding their teams together on willpower. Nearly half of them, in one TalentLMS survey, say their company isn’t doing enough to build the next set of leaders.6 That’s a room full of people looking up the ladder and realizing nobody is investing in them either.

It’s easy to read all this as a story about bad managers. The truth is smaller and worse: these are people handed a job nobody taught them, then blamed when it went the way it was always going to go.

It has had a name since 1969

Laurence J. Peter named it in 1969, in a book called The Peter Principle.7 In a hierarchy, people rise to their level of incompetence. The mechanism is simple and a little cruel. You do well, so you get promoted. You do well again, so you get promoted again. It continues until you land in a role you can’t do, and there you stay, because there’s no promotion out of it.

Tech took that old idea and sharpened it. For a long time the only road to more money and more standing ran through management. If “senior engineer” is the last rung before you have to start managing people to get a raise, then every ambitious engineer has exactly one option. So they take it. The company loses a great engineer and gains a struggling manager in a single move, and calls it a promotion.

It isn’t only software. A study tracking nearly 39,000 salespeople across 131 companies, around 1,500 of them promoted into management, found the best salespeople made the worst managers. Doubling your own sales before the promotion lined up with each person on your new team selling about 6% less after it.8 Stanford’s Edward Lazear modeled the whole thing formally and confirmed the obvious: performance tends to fall after the promotion that was supposed to recognize it.9

And we keep selecting for the wrong thing. Gallup’s read is that maybe 1 in 10 people have the natural wiring to manage well, and that companies miss that wiring 82% of the time.10 Read that twice. We don’t just skip the training. We skip asking whether the person was ever suited to the job.

Google spent years proving the obvious

In 2009 Google set out to prove managers didn’t matter much. They called it Project Oxygen, ran it across more than 10,000 reviews, surveys, and observations, and found the opposite of what they were looking for.11

The behaviors that separated their best managers were all relational. Good coach. Empowers the team instead of micromanaging. Actually cares whether you’re okay. Listens. Helps you get where you’re trying to go in your career.

Technical expertise came in last. Not lower than expected. Last.12 The one thing your freshly promoted senior engineer is unquestionably qualified for turned out to be the weakest predictor of whether they’d be any good at the job.

The hopeful half of the finding: once Google built training around those behaviors, their managers measurably got better. The skills are learnable. Most companies just never bother to teach them.

The micromanagement trap is a defense mechanism

There’s one failure mode almost every engineer-turned-manager walks into, and it isn’t laziness. It’s fear wearing a productivity costume.

You spent years being measured by the quality of what you personally built. Now you inherit a team whose output shows up with your name on it, and you have no direct control over most of it. So you reach for the thing that always worked: you do it yourself. Engineers carry what I’d call the habit of success. At the first sign things might go wrong, they step in and fix it. In an IC that instinct is a superpower. In a manager it quietly poisons everything.

Now the engineer isn’t engineering, which was the actual talent, and the team isn’t trusted to own its own work, which was the actual point. Both sides lose. The manager works 60-hour weeks doing two jobs and doing neither one well.

This is so predictable it’s almost a law. Gartner found that within two years 40% of new managers are already struggling to support their teams, and the fix it prescribes is the training most of them never got.13 Forty percent, that fast. When a system trips up that many of the people it feeds into, the people were never the variable.

The fix is boring, which is why it gets skipped

There are two ways out of this, and the embarrassing part is how long both have been sitting in plain sight.

First, give engineers a way up that doesn’t run through management. The dual-track ladder isn’t a new idea. Google, Meta, Netflix, Spotify and plenty of others let individual contributors climb to Staff, Principal, and Distinguished Engineer with pay and standing that match or beat the management track. A Staff-plus engineer at a big company can clear $400K and never run a one-on-one. When most developers say they’d rather stay technical and only a fraction of companies offer a real path past senior, you aren’t just minting bad managers. You’re forcing a career change on people who never asked for one. A second ladder ends the forced choice between the work you’re good at and a raise.

Second, if you are going to move an engineer into management, treat it like the career change it is, not the trophy it looks like:

  • Interview for leadership, not for tenure.
  • Say out loud what success looks like now, and admit it isn’t sprint velocity.
  • Give them a manager mentor for the first six months.
  • Pay for real training. Not a two-hour lunch workshop. Ongoing coaching with a feedback loop.
  • Measure how the team is doing, not just what it shipped.

The payoff isn’t subtle. Gallup’s work on strengths-based development found it can lift profit by as much as 29% and sales by 10 to 19 percent.14 Most companies treat the training line as a cost to trim. The numbers sitting on the other side of it suggest they have the arithmetic backwards.

The part nobody says out loud

Most engineer-turned-managers haven’t read a single book on the job. Not The Manager’s Path. Not Radical Candor. Not High Output Management. Not a decent blog post on running a one-on-one.

Some of that is the company’s fault for never asking them to. But some of it is cultural. We’re engineers. We hit a problem, we search for the answer, we ship the fix. Now AI hands us the answer before we’ve finished typing the question. But management doesn’t have a Stack Overflow, and it doesn’t have a model you can prompt. No tool is going to read the room for you, or tell you why your best engineer has gone quiet. The problems are vague, the answers depend on people, and the feedback comes back in months instead of milliseconds.

The ones who make the leap well treat it like learning a new language. They assume they’re a beginner, because they are. The ones who struggle treat it like a fancier version of the job they already had.

A good engineer becoming a manager is starting over. You can teach them that, or pay for it in turnover. And it’s rarely the manager who walks first. It’s the team that goes quiet, then goes.

Sources

  1. Center for Creative Leadership, “How to Prepare First-Time Leaders for Success,” Center for Creative Leadership, 2024. https://www.ccl.org/articles/leading-effectively-articles/prepare-first-time-leaders-success/ ↩

  2. Jim Harter, “Employee Engagement Strategies: Fixing the World’s $8.8 Trillion Problem,” Gallup, 2023. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/393497/world-trillion-workplace-problem.aspx ↩

  3. Jim Harter, “In New Workplace, U.S. Employee Engagement Stagnates,” Gallup, 2024. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/608675/new-workplace-employee-engagement-stagnates.aspx ↩

  4. Emma Burleigh, “Bad bosses are pushing Gen Zers and millennials to the brink of quitting,” Fortune (citing LinkedIn’s Workforce Confidence survey), 2024. https://fortune.com/2024/08/09/bad-bosses-push-gen-z-millennials-to-brink-of-quitting/ ↩

  5. Jim Harter and Ryan Pendell, “Global Employee Engagement Continues Decline,” Gallup, 2026. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/708071/global-employee-engagement-continues-decline.aspx ↩

  6. TalentLMS, “Leadership Development Survey 2024,” TalentLMS / Epignosis, 2024. https://www.talentlms.com/research/leadership-development-survey ↩

  7. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull, “The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong,” William Morrow & Company, 1969. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle ↩

  8. Alan Benson, Danielle Li, and Kelly Shue, “Promotions and the Peter Principle,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 134, no. 4, 2019, pp. 2085–2134. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/134/4/2085/5550760 ↩

  9. Edward P. Lazear, “The Peter Principle: A Theory of Decline,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 112, no. S1, 2004, pp. S141–S163. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/379943 ↩

  10. Randall J. Beck and Jim Harter, “Why Great Managers Are So Rare,” Gallup, 2014. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/231593/why-great-managers-rare.aspx ↩

  11. Google re:Work, “Following the data: The research behind great managers,” Google, 2018. https://rework.withgoogle.com/intl/en/guides/following-the-data-the-research-behind-great-managers ↩

  12. David A. Garvin, “How Google Sold Its Engineers on Management,” Harvard Business Review, December 2013. https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-google-sold-its-engineers-on-management ↩

  13. Gartner, “Three Steps to Support First-Time Managers,” Gartner, 2023. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2023-10-23-gartner-reimagine-orlando-q-a-support-first-time-managers ↩

  14. Brandon Rigoni and Jim Asplund, “Global Study: ROI for Strengths-Based Development,” Gallup, 2016. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/236288/global-study-roi-strengths-based-development.aspx ↩

You've read this far. Let's talk.

Start a conversation