That's a good point. One of the best arguments I've read about corporate structure argued the higher up you go, the more of an enable you're supposed to be and

That's a good point. One of the best arguments I've read about corporate structure argued the higher up you go, the more of an enable you're supposed to be and it's less about you and more about how you empower the people below you to do. That's the idea I approach management from - how do I set people up to succeed and continue being successful. I think part of helping "fix" management is to acknowledge their job is to empower people to "do" and a manager should be measured by their team. The more successful the team, the better a reflection on the manager rather than the manager must be a star. I also think part of it is the lack of training new managers are given. Promote someone from coder to manager, without giving them any training in how to make the shift and many of them will fall back on old metrics for determining their success rather than getting a new paradigm. It's about what I've done / how I've contributed and "led" rather than how I've empowered the people under me. Sometimes leadership isn't telling people how to do something, it's giving them the tools, trusting their ability, and getting out of the way.