I think the author meant for EMs to be prepared for much bigger scopes than we used to anticipate. It's likely that the person who manages a team, or a few teams, is already at the top of the function.
Great insight! Thanks. My question is around the continued growth of companies. Won’t there be a limit to the number of ICs that a senior manager can manage? As companies provide more value and do more, there will need to be more ICs. Don’t we then go back to more managers and a need to then put in place managers to manage those people.
It seems we would be able to dramatically increase productivity but eventually go back to a similar structure as a person can only manage so many people.
The structural analysis is right, but I'd add a layer that's harder to talk about.
AI doesn't just redistribute scope and accountability. It redistributes visibility. For 30 years, middle management often thrived by controlling information flow, knowing more than their reports, less than their executives, and managing the gap. AI collapses that gap.
The real question for the IC vs manager debate isn't efficiency. It's this: what happens to leaders whose authority was built on information asymmetry rather than genuine capability?
And it goes further. When every project meeting and technical review is routinely recorded, transcribed and analysed by AI as part of normal work who said what, who contributed what, who deferred and who decided the performance of leadership becomes transparent in ways it never was before. You can no longer claim credit for a room you dominated. The room is on record.
AI doesn't just amplify the great. It exposes why some people were considered great in the first place.
Agree and disagree.
Yes, the need for middle management will shrink. But that doesn’t mean senior ICs automatically become managers. Management is a different craft.
If AI creates 10x efficiency, it also creates 10x accountability. Not every engineer wants, or is ready for, that level of ownership.
From what I’m seeing, AI amplifies the great, but not everyone.
Two groups are most at risk:
- Average engineers. Who rely on specifications in assigned tickets. They will be replaced.
- Layered middle management. Leaner organizations means less layers. No other way around it.
And two groups will shine:
- Great engineers. Less people can do more.
- Capable frontline managers. Bigger scopes require strong managers.
AI rewards capability, technical or managerial, and exposes mediocrity in both.
Super insightful! Thank you for sharing! As a new EM, what do you mean by
"... Either grow your seniority and impact as an AI-first Senior individual contributor, or try to make the hop to the top of a function." ?
I think the author meant for EMs to be prepared for much bigger scopes than we used to anticipate. It's likely that the person who manages a team, or a few teams, is already at the top of the function.
Great insight! Thanks. My question is around the continued growth of companies. Won’t there be a limit to the number of ICs that a senior manager can manage? As companies provide more value and do more, there will need to be more ICs. Don’t we then go back to more managers and a need to then put in place managers to manage those people.
It seems we would be able to dramatically increase productivity but eventually go back to a similar structure as a person can only manage so many people.
Very interesting. I can see this happening now and it's essential that people take control of their careers by being proactive and not by waiting.
The structural analysis is right, but I'd add a layer that's harder to talk about.
AI doesn't just redistribute scope and accountability. It redistributes visibility. For 30 years, middle management often thrived by controlling information flow, knowing more than their reports, less than their executives, and managing the gap. AI collapses that gap.
The real question for the IC vs manager debate isn't efficiency. It's this: what happens to leaders whose authority was built on information asymmetry rather than genuine capability?
And it goes further. When every project meeting and technical review is routinely recorded, transcribed and analysed by AI as part of normal work who said what, who contributed what, who deferred and who decided the performance of leadership becomes transparent in ways it never was before. You can no longer claim credit for a room you dominated. The room is on record.
AI doesn't just amplify the great. It exposes why some people were considered great in the first place.