[gibbitz]

If I was interested in people I would likely have gone into business/management in school. I imagine if that were the case, I would probably have not liked software development much either. I've consistently chosen to continue to develop and it breaks the minds of management who can't understand why I don't want to be in leadership. Often development career paths in corporate America end in leadership positions. It's a different job -- one I don't feel qualified to do just because I'm good at the other one. I think this helps to show how people can fail up in an organization and that oftentimes management is a place to store good employees to keep them away from the competition. Don't get me wrong, there are people who do a job who make fine managers, but that's a happy accident in my view, and not a logical progression.

[josht]

Thank you for sharing your perspective—it’s an important one. Leadership isn’t for everyone, and that’s completely fine. Those driven to master technical skills should absolutely continue down that path—it leads to incredible innovation and contributions.

That said, I believe technical leadership works best when carried out by those with hands-on experience. This background fosters a deep understanding and empathy for engineers, making such leaders uniquely equipped to guide teams effectively.

For those interested in developing soft skills alongside their technical expertise, leadership offers a chance to scale their impact in new ways. By combining hard and soft skills, leaders can achieve non-linear scalability, influencing not just the work but the people and systems around them.

Ultimately, it’s about choice. Both paths—technical mastery and leadership—are valuable. The key is ensuring leadership is a deliberate pursuit, not just the default next step.