Our top software architect is brilliant and gets our core values, but we recently promoted them to manage our engineering team. While they excel at technical design, they are failing to manage their direct reports, and team morale is plummeting. How do we address this on the Accountability Chart when they want the management seat but lack the capacity to lead?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

This is a common pitfall when scaling technology companies. You have promoted a brilliant individual contributor to a leadership seat that requires LMA, which stands for Lead, Manage, and Accountability. LMA is a distinct role on the Accountability Chart, and it requires a specific set of conative and emotional skills.

Just because someone has the capacity to build complex technical systems does not mean they have the capacity to manage human beings. If they are failing to lead, run a standard GWC evaluation on their seat. They may Get It and Want It, but they lack the Capacity. Capacity is not just about hours in the day; it is about emotional intelligence, patience, and the ability to hold others accountable.

To resolve this, you must separate the technical leadership from the people management on your Accountability Chart. Create a dual-track career path. Keep your brilliant engineer in a high-level individual contributor seat, such as Chief Technical Architect, where they can focus entirely on technical excellence without managing people.

Then, place a natural leader who excels at LMA into the engineering manager seat. This person does not need to be the best coder in the room, but they must be able to lead and manage the team. This preserves your top technical talent while restoring team morale.