Recently, I had lunch with a longtime friend—let’s call him JJ—who’s built an excellent career in web development. He’s climbed from junior to senior roles over several years, finding deep satisfaction in solving complex problems and collaborating with teammates. JJ naturally mentors less-seasoned developers and has become the go-to person in his organization when people need advice on challenging problems.
But that day, JJ looked worried. His organization’s Engineering Manager had just left, and they’d offered him the role. Despite his track record as a team lead, his close collaboration with the previous manager, and his familiarity with many managerial touchpoints, JJ was genuinely conflicted. The promotion would also create advancement opportunities for deserving team members below him—talk about pressure to say “yes.”
The Peter Principle in Action
JJ’s dilemma perfectly illustrates what Dr. Laurence Peter identified in his seminal 1968 work: the Peter Principle. Organizations consistently promote people who excel in their current roles until they land in positions they cannot perform effectively. It’s a systemic issue that creates what I call “accidental managers”—talented individual contributors thrust into management roles simply because they demonstrated leadership qualities.
The assumption seems logical: if someone leads well as an individual contributor, they’ll manage well too. But this misses a fundamental truth about organizational dynamics.
Leadership vs. Management in Design
Here’s what I’ve learned: leadership and management are completely different things. You can lead without managing anyone. I see this all the time with senior designers who become the go-to person for design decisions, mentor junior folks, and shape product direction—all without a “manager” title.
But managing? That’s about stakeholder communication, resource allocation, performance reviews, and navigating organizational politics. For someone like JJ who loves being hands-on, management means trading your IC tools for budget spreadsheets and one-on-ones.
In design orgs, we often promote our best designers into management roles, then wonder why they seem miserable. When you love spending your days in Figma and Miro, it makes sense that living in Excel and Powerpoint would leave you deflated. Worse, the org loses a great designer and gains a reluctant manager.
A Better Way Forward
Smart design organizations create parallel tracks: Principal Designer, Design Director (IC), Staff Designer—roles that recognize design leadership without forcing people into people management. Before offering someone a management role, ask the real question: do they actually want to manage people, or do they just want career growth?
The best design leaders I know understand this distinction. They keep talented designers designing while developing managers who genuinely want to build and grow teams.
The Bottom Line
JJ’s story isn’t unique—it plays out in organizations everywhere. We’re creating accidental managers by conflating leadership ability with management potential, then wondering why engagement scores drop and turnover increases.
The most effective organizations understand that great leadership can happen anywhere in the hierarchy, while great management requires specific skills, interests, and development. By recognizing this distinction and creating systems that honor both paths, we can keep talented individual contributors in roles where they thrive while developing managers who genuinely want to lead teams.
Sometimes the best leadership decision is knowing when not to manage.