Recently, Coinbase cut 14 percent of its staff. CEO Brian Armstrong was direct about why. The “pure manager” role no longer has a place at the company. Every manager, he said, must be a strong individual contributor. A player-coach who gets their hands dirty alongside their team.

Then Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky said AI will make people managers obsolete. Two of the most watched CEOs in business. Same week, said similar things.

The media ran with it. Blogs that said, “Managers are screwed.” “Managers are endangered species.” “The great manager massacre is here.”

But be careful about just reading the headlines. Because what Armstong and Chesky are really saying is that they are eliminating a title on an org chart. A box in a hierarchy. Someone whose primary job is to sit between the work and the people doing it, scheduling, updating, enforcing, and reporting.

They are not eliminating the person who develops talent. Who coaches people to a level of performance they could not reach alone. Who creates connection, builds culture, and makes everyone around them better. That person is not obsolete. That person is exactly what every organization running leaner on AI will need more of, not less.

Here is the truth nobody is saying: managers are not screwed because of AI. If managers are screwed it’s because they confused managing people with leading them. Those simply are not the same thing. The hard truth is that people who can lead others to higher levels of performance will always be valuable.

The Promotion Trap

I was introduced to Michael to assist in executive coaching. He was type A, results-oriented, and intense. As VP of Sales, those qualities worked. So the organization did what most organizations do. They promoted him to President and expected more of the same.

The opposite happened.

Sales results held up. But turnover in his company spiked. Client retention became a disaster. His team was bleeding out, and Michael’s only answer was to push harder with more intensity and urgency. More of what had always worked for him before.

While there is immense value in urgency and hard work, this particular time, it backfired.

What it created was a wake of carnage behind his boat. An unengaged team, a revolving door of talent. An executive team that wasn’t aligned, and clients were leaving because the people serving them kept leaving first.

After spending time observing Michael, it was clear he was an excellent individual contributor and even a sales manager, but he was absent as a leader.

The Difference Between Managing and Developing

Managing people and developing people are not the same thing. And they do not carry the same value.

Managing includes scheduling, task allocation, status updates, and process enforcement. None of that is bad or unimportant. But it is not nearly as important as developing people.

Developing others is coaching people to meet their potential. Spending the time and energy to help others get better, do their job with more proficiency, and reach a level of excellence they could not find on their own. This is essential because 99% of people cannot meet their potential alone.

Michael spent almost all his time managing and barking orders. He had almost no time or interest in developing people. His team did not leave because the work was hard. They left because they were not growing.

Managing people and developing people are not the same thing. And they do not carry the same value.

The Finish Line Problem

I recently sat down with Tyler Dickerhoof on the John Eades podcast. Tyler is the author of the upcoming book The Things We Hide and one of the sharpest thinkers I know about what separates leaders who build something lasting from those who burn everything down in pursuit of results.

He described intensity like a bulldozer. Pointed at the right thing, it gets the job done. Pointed at your people without adjusting, you leave carnage. He used a relay race to explain what happens to high-intensity leaders who never slow down.

“If I’m urgent, if I’m passionate, if I don’t slow down to get where they’re at, I’m gonna end up at the finish line all by myself. And I never carried the baton.”

That was Michael. That is what happens in organizations every day. The manager crosses the finish line, turns around, and realizes that no one is actually following them because they want to, only because they feel they have to.

Rams Coach Sean McVay Gets it Right

The player-coach idea is not wrong. It is just misunderstood.

Armstrong is not asking for leaders who work harder. He is asking for leaders who stay close enough to the work to actually develop the people doing it. Think of an NFL coach like Sean McVay. He still calls the plays on offense, even as the head coach. By staying close to the execution, he creates a real connection with his players and other coaches. He sees what his people are dealing with and can coach in the moment. He can add his world-class competence to help deliver superior performance.

But here is what is most impressive. Seven of his former assistant coaches have become head coaches themselves, and 15-20 have become coordinators. Clearly, he is in the business of developing people and delivering performance. Because he understands a core leadership principle from Accelerate Leadership:

“A leaders title is temporary, their impact is lasting.”

That is what a player-coach actually looks like. Not someone carrying all of the load. Someone developing the people around them so the load gets lighter for everyone.

Three Questions Worth Sitting With

The question is not whether you can manage. It is whether you are developing others when you have the opportunity to do so.

Ask yourself these three things honestly.

• Am I spending more time managing tasks than developing people? If your calendar is full of status updates, scheduling, and process reviews, with almost no time coaching the people you lead, you are managing. You are not leading.
• Are my people getting better because of me? Not because of the work. Because of me. If you cannot name three people who are better at their jobs because you invested in them, you are not developing.
• Would my team follow me to the finish line or watch me get there alone? If your people would run through a wall for you, you are leading. If they are just executing, you are managing.

Closing

Armstrong is mostly right that organizations do not need as many pure managers as they probably used to have. But it is not entirely about AI. It is mainly because managers are managing, not leading.

The leaders who make an impact and will always find a home are the ones who bringing others along and share the collective weight.

Tyler Dickerhoof said it best. “The weight that crushes us is the weight we carry alone.”

The question is not whether your organization will cut managers. Most organizations will. The question is whether you have the skills to lead and elevate others.

Stop Asking Your Managers to Lead. Show Them How: A proven leadership development system you can run yourself, run together with us, or have us run for you, backed by a 90-day results guarantee. Learn More

Take the Free Leadership Style Quiz Join over 70k leaders and discover your current leadership style for free.

What’s Your Default Outlook? Not sure if you lead with optimism, realism, or pessimism? Take the free assessment and find out in two minutes. Discover Your Default Outlook for Free

About the Author: John Eades is the CEO of LearnLoft and The Sales Infrastructure. He was named one of LinkedIn’s Top Voices. John is also the author of Building the Best and the Optimistic Outlook.