Latest / New Manager Conversations with Fexingo: First 90 Days, Managing Former Peers, and Leadership Basics / The Trap of Promoting Your Best Individual Contributor
Transcript
- Lucas: You know what I see every quarter? It’s not bad hiring. It’s good people getting promoted into roles they aren’t built for, and then watching them quietly drown. The classic case is the senior engineer or the top sales rep who gets handed a team because they’re reliable, not because they want to manage. Luna: Right. And suddenly they’re stuck in meetings instead of doing the work they loved, wondering if they made a huge mistake. Lucas: Exactly. Let’s look at the specific mechanics of that failure mode. Take a mid-level software architect, let’s call him David. David writes clean code, solves complex bugs, and is universally respected. His company promotes him to Engineering Manager because he’s the most competent person in the room. On paper, it’s a logical move. In practice, it’s often a disaster within ninety days. Luna: Because he stops coding, right? Or he keeps trying to code while also managing? Lucas: Both. But mostly he keeps trying to prove his worth through individual output. He starts picking up tickets himself because he trusts his own judgment more than anyone else’s. He thinks, 'I can just fix this bug faster than I can explain it to my direct report.' But by doing that, he undermines the very person he’s supposed to be developing. Luna: So he creates a bottleneck where he’s the only one who knows how things work, which is the opposite of what a manager should do. Lucas: Spot on. And here’s the subtle part: David feels guilty. He misses the clarity of writing code. A bug either works or it doesn’t. Management is messy, ambiguous, and political. So he retreats back to technical tasks whenever possible, leaving his team without direction while he burns out trying to do two jobs at once. Luna: That guilt is real. I’ve seen managers apologize for taking time off because they used to be the ones everyone relied on for instant answers. Lucas: Let’s dig into the skill gap. Technical competence is linear. You learn a language, you get better. Management is non-linear. It involves empathy, conflict resolution, strategic prioritization, and delegation. These are completely different muscle groups. Most companies don’t train for the second set; they just assume the first set guarantees success in the second. Luna: It’s like promoting the best chess player to coach the team because they understand the pieces, ignoring that coaching requires teaching, not just playing. Lucas: Perfect analogy. And the irony is, the best individual contributors often have the highest standards. They can’t stand seeing suboptimal solutions. As a manager, your job isn’t to deliver the optimal solution; it’s to build a system where others can deliver acceptable solutions consistently. That means letting go of perfectionism. Luna: Which feels like failure in the moment, even though it’s necessary for scale. Lucas: Exactly. So how do we help someone like David navigate this? First, reframe the metric of success. If David’s goal is still 'write the most code,' he will fail. His new goal must be 'enable my team to write more code.' It shifts the focus from personal output to team velocity. Luna: But how do you measure that? It’s harder to track than lines of code or closed tickets. Lucas: You track dependencies removed. How many blockers did your team clear? How many junior developers got promoted or became independent? You start measuring leadership leverage, not individual effort. It’s a slower feedback loop, which is uncomfortable for high-performers used to immediate gratification. Luna: That slow feedback loop is brutal. I think that’s why so many revert to micromanaging—they need that quick hit of control. Lucas: Precisely. And this ties back to our earlier episodes on boundaries. David has to stop being the hero his old team relied on. He has to become the obstacle remover. When a junior dev comes to him with a problem, instead of fixing it, he asks, 'What are your options?' and 'Who else can help?' He forces the conversation toward autonomy. Luna: It sounds simple, but it’s emotionally difficult to watch someone struggle for twenty minutes when you could solve it in five. Lucas: It is painful. But that twenty-minute struggle is where learning happens. If you solve it, you rob them of the growth. You have to sit with that discomfort. That’s the core of the identity crisis—letting go of being the smartest person in the room. Luna: And trusting that the room will still function, even if it’s messier for a bit. Lucas: Right. Now, let’s pivot slightly to the interpersonal dynamic. When David was a peer, his relationships were based on camaraderie and shared struggle. Now, he’s the evaluator. He holds the purse strings and the performance reviews. That changes everything. Luna: Yeah, you can’t really joke around or vent with your old friends the same way once you’re on the other side of the table. Lucas: Exactly. David has to establish professional distance early. Not coldness, but clarity. He needs to make it known that while he values their friendship, his primary responsibility is now to the team’s goals. Ambiguity here breeds resentment. Luna: Resentment from both sides? The new manager feeling isolated and the old peers feeling betrayed? Lucas: Both. And if David tries to maintain the old dynamic too tightly, he becomes the 'favorite' who lets things slide, which destroys credibility with the rest of the team. If he swings too far, he becomes the bureaucrat no one likes. Finding that balance is the hardest part of the first ninety days. Luna: It’s a tightrope walk where you’re constantly recalibrating how much of yourself to show. Lucas: Let me pause here for a quick honest thing. A handful of listeners chip in monthly through buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo, and that's literally what funds making this many of these. It’s ad-free, listener-funded, and a small group already keeps it going. No pressure, just appreciation if you can spare a buck. Luna: Thanks for supporting the show. It really helps us keep digging into these nuanced topics without worrying about advertiser pushback. Lucas: Back to David. So he’s navigating the role shift and the boundary issues. What about the actual work? How does he handle performance reviews with people he used to collaborate with daily? Luna: That’s tricky. If Sarah used to pair program with David, and now she’s underperforming, does he owe her leniency because they’re friends? Lucas: No. He owes her honesty. But he needs to frame it carefully. Instead of 'I’m disappointed you didn’t meet expectations,' it’s 'Here’s the gap between where you are and where the role requires you to be.' Remove the emotion, stick to the data. It protects the relationship and clarifies the path forward. Luna: Data-driven feedback removes the personal sting. It makes it about the job, not the person. Lucas: Exactly. And this applies to recognition too. If David sees a win from a former peer, he should celebrate it publicly as a team win, not just a personal achievement. He’s shifting the narrative from 'David did great' to 'Our team is capable.' Luna: That builds trust. People feel safe knowing their manager is looking out for their career, not just their own metrics. Lucas: Well said. So, to wrap this up for our listeners thinking about that promotion: ask yourself if you want to be a maker or a multiplier. Makers create value directly. Multipliers create value by enabling others. Both are vital, but they require different mindsets. Don’t take the leap until you’re ready to stop making and start multiplying. Luna: It’s a big shift, but one that ultimately leads to more sustainable impact than any single individual contribution ever could. Lucas: Agreed. And that’s the long game. Thanks for listening.