A long-tenured leader who built our engineering division now leads a team of thirty, but as we added managerial layers, they continue to bypass their managers to do the coding themselves. How do we use GWC to evaluate whether this leader can actually step into executive management or needs to be moved to an individual contributor seat?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

This is a classic Capacity breakdown disguised as high work ethic. When a company scales, the seat changes even if the title remains the same. Running a four person engineering unit requires high technical execution. Running a thirty person engineering department requires Leading, Managing, and holding people Accountable (LMA), establishing architecture standards, and developing talent.

To evaluate this leader using GWC™, separate technical skill from seat requirements:

First, evaluate Gets It. Do they understand what modern executive management actually entails? If they believe their value still comes from personally resolving complex tickets rather than mentoring managers and building automated development pipelines, they do not truly get the seat.

Second, evaluate Wants It. Do they genuinely desire people management, budget accountability, and strategic resourcing? Many technical pioneers accept executive seats out of loyalty or ego, yet secretly despise 1-on-1s, quarterly reviews, and operational meetings. If they would rather write code than lead, they do not want the seat.

Third, evaluate Capacity. Do they possess the emotional intelligence, executive presence, and systemic thinking required to lead at this altitude? Working eighty hours a week to write code while their direct reports wait for direction is proof of a Capacity failure in executive leadership.

If they fail GWC for an executive seat, you must redesign the Accountability Chart. Create a distinguished technical contributor seat, such as Chief Architect or Technical Fellow, that sits outside direct people management. This preserves their deep institutional expertise, frees your middle managers to lead, and stops the bottleneck without casting aside a vital company asset.