I agree, and I'd go one step farther. This post warns of the risk of "Gaining a bad manager, losing a good engineer" I actually think companies should even be

I agree, and I'd go one step farther. This post warns of the risk of "Gaining a bad manager, losing a good engineer" I actually think companies should even be concerned about "gaining a good manager, losing a good engineer." There's this notion that it's better to be a good engineer than a bad manager, and that wage ceilings that force engineers to become managers even if they aren't good at it are harmful. This, I agree with. But you know, I actually thing there may be harm even if the engineer is a good manager. Truth is, in many instances a top engineer is harder to find, harder to develop, and creates more wealth than a top manager. In short, if someone is really good at both, even then you might be better off leaving that person in engineering. Usually the very best engineers do end up as leaders of sorts. However, these engineers tend to lead loose and informal groups of other talented people, often coordinating complicated work that requires deep understanding of the technology and domain. They often resist the "management" title, and they are generally uninterested (perhaps opposed to) tasks like handling vacation requests or writing performance reports. Why you'd take a person like this out of the deep engineering role and put them into a formal "management" role that can be filled by a much larger pool of workers is beyond me.