Leman Tech Leadership Podcast · 2026-08-25 · 15 min
Key moments - from our scoring
Substance score
42 / 100
Five dimensions, 20 points each
The episode tackles a growing tension in tech teams: strong individual contributors rejecting promotions to people management roles. Rather than framing this as lack of ambition, Lemanski reframes it as a contracting failure - leaders assuming a universal definition of 'growth' (more people, more scope, more title) without ever asking what growth actually means to the person in front of them. Using the Process Communication Model, he shows how to tailor career conversations to different personality bases: for thinkers, frame growth around technical mastery and depth; for persistors, explore what work genuinely matters to them beyond titles; for rebels and promoters, recognize that variety and new problems might matter more than linear progression. The core issue isn't that engineers lack ambition - it's that leaders offer only one kind of growth and interpret refusal as disengagement rather than misalignment. Lemanski recommends four concrete steps: stop pre-deciding promotion outcomes before asking; ask open questions about what a good next two years looks like; build visible non-management growth tracks; and when someone declines, ask what they're optimizing for instead. This addresses a systemic problem affecting tech teams at scale.
Many engineers don't want management because they value depth over scope, autonomy over responsibility, and preserving time outside work over titles and headcount - these are different value sets, not laziness or lack of ambition.
It's a contracting failure: leaders assume a universal definition of 'growth' centered on the traditional ladder and offer it without asking what growth actually means to the individual.
Ask open questions like 'What does a good next two years look like to you?' without steering them toward your assumed path, and use the Process Communication Model to tailor the conversation to their communication base.
Build visible non-management tracks including deeper technical problems, domain ownership, expanded scope without people management, and mentoring roles without formal reports.
Rather than reading it as lack of engagement, ask what they're optimizing for instead - usually there's a clear answer that makes complete sense once you understand their actual values and constraints.
Our reviewer’s read on each dimension, with quotes from the episode.
The episode contains a solid central insight - the reframing of career growth as culturally contingent rather than universal - backed by practical contracting frameworks and communication model application. However, there is substantial filler: repeated book promotion, throat-clearing, and some repetition of the core idea dilutes the density. The actionable takeaways (recontract, ask open questions, build non-management tracks, reframe declined promotions) are solid but not densely packed.
if you keep offering the only kind of growth you know how to offer, and they keep declining it, you'll start reading their disengagement as a problem with them, when in fact it is actually a problem with your assumptions and the system
Two people who never agreed terms means the fix starts with recontracting and conversation itself, instead of walking in with that growth path already decided
The core reframing - that career growth is a contracting failure rooted in unstated assumptions rather than a motivation problem - is somewhat fresh for mainstream leadership podcasts, though it echoes established organizational psychology around psychological contracts. The PCM personality-based communication framing adds originality, but the overall argument follows predictable structure and lacks genuinely counterintuitive claims or first-principles rethinking.
A meaningful and growing number of ICs, especially newer ones entering the field right now, don't share that assumption. Some genuinely don't want to manage people.
This isn't laziness, and it isn't a generational insult. Whatever framing you might have heard elsewhere, it is a different value set.
This is a solo episode with no guest. The host, Alexander Lemansky, claims to be a former violinist, management engineer, and organizational psychologist with PCM expertise, but the transcript provides no verifiable track record of leading engineers at scale or detailed operating experience. He is primarily a coach and author selling a book, which does not constitute practitioner-grade caliber for evaluating real operating problems.
My name is Alexander Lemansky. I'm a former violinist turned management engineer, turned organizational psychologist, speaker and PCM leadership mentor and facilitator.
I wrote From Code to People, the Sky leadership method that transforms technical experts into leaders
The episode opens with one concrete anecdote - a director's conversation with an engineer who declined promotion - but provides minimal detail: no company context, no metrics, no timeline beyond 'a few weeks ago,' and no numbers. The actionable frameworks are generic and abstract. The entire four-point action list (recontract, ask open questions, build non-management tracks, reframe declines) lacks named examples, named companies, or quantified outcomes that would ground the advice in evidence.
a few weeks ago, one of the directors that I mentor told me about the conversation that completely like through her. She would just put together a strong case to promote one of her best engineers
I don't actually want more people depending on me. I want to keep building things and go home at five.
This is a monologue, not a conversation. There is no guest, no pushback, no follow-up questioning, and no moments of productive disagreement or curiosity being tested in real time. The host talks at the listener rather than engaging them in dialogue. The closing call-to-action is generic and exhortatory rather than substantive. There are no sharp, probing questions that challenge the premises being laid out.
This is the Lemon Tech Leadership Podcast. Okay, so let's go and take some action.
So thank you for listening to this episode. I believe it. It is very very meaningful because we have so many assumptions about growth
Computed from the transcript - who did the talking, and the words that came up most.
▶︎ #189 | How to Lead Engineers Who Don't Want Your Career Path? In this solo episode of the Leman Tech Leadership Podcast, Aleksandra Lemańska takes on a question more leaders are quietly wrestling with: how do you lead engineers who don't want your career path? The episode opens with a story from one of Alex's mentees, a director who built a strong promotion case for one of her best engineers, only to have him turn it down. Not for money, not for timing, but because he didn't want more people depending on him. Alex names this as a growing pattern across tech teams: leaders offering the only kind of growth they know (more scope, more people, more title) to engineers who are optimizing for something else entirely. Using Contracting from her CQ Leadership Method, Alex breaks down why this disconnect happens: leaders assume a shared, universal definition of “growth” that was never actually agreed on. She applies PCM to show how the growth conversation needs to shift depending on personality base, from mastery and technical depth, to values-driven work, to variety and stimulation, rather than a single generic script.
Transcribed and scored by The B2B Podcast Index.
Hi, everybody, it is Alex Let me ask you something. Do you don't Mike? You know, the best engineer on the team, promoted to lead and suddenly drowning. Nobody trained him to manage others.
Nobody trend to you either. This is exactly why I wrote From Code to People, the Sky leadership method that transforms technical experts into leaders teams actually want to work for. It's not another leadership theory book. It is the practical system that I use with tech layers every single day, built on three main tools that you can start using right away.
Process Communication Model PCM, three level contracting, and the Will of Conflict. Real frameworks for real conversations with real engineers like Mike. If you're a technol expert who got promoted into people management and nobody handed to an app, this book is your mark. Grab it ad from cod to People, that's Lemanskills dot com.
That's from Code to People that Leman Skills dot com. Welcome to the Lemon Tech Leadership Podcast. My name is Alexander Leaminskam. I'm a former violinist turned management engineer, turned organizational psychologist, speaker and PCM leadership mentor and facilitator.
In this space, everyone is invited to the table where we have real, eye opening conversations about tech leadership. Two keywords utility and real life implementation. Knowledge tools, frameworks, ways of working do and don't taken from my personal experiences as a leader in the experiences of others is what you are going to get from every single episode. This is the Lemon Tech Leadership Podcast.
Okay, so let's go and take some action. Hi everybody, and welcome to another episode of the Leman Tech Leadership Podcast. This is Alex and I I would love to invite you to the conversation that I have with other leaders and I wouldn't be myself if I am not addressing it in this platform because I think that this is a problem that we have a scale, and I have a lot of questions for you regarding the subject. And the question is, Alex, how should I lead engineers that don't want my career path?
This is interesting, right, what kind of path we're talking about? So let's dig deeper into this question that might not be that obvious, and that there is there and people are talking about it or are only thinking about it and actually are not saying aloud. So they dig deep into this subject. And before we do, I am going to repeat myself, but health, what the hell if you haven't already, go grab from Code to People.
This is my book that is available on Amazon all over the globe. From Code to People that Lemons Skills dot com. You can check it out there, just a go and grab it. This is an investment that is one of the lowest that you can actually make.
But this is the one step shop. And one person named it a workshop book. It's not a book, it's a workshop in paper because this is very practical and the things that I'm talking about there, the tools that I'm giving, the practical pieces of frameworks that I'm getting there have one goal getting rid of your frustrations where you're cooperating with others, including leadership situations, so all human things that cost you a lot of frustrations, a lot of wasted time. There is a solution on that.
So go and check it out, grab your copy if you don't have it already, and it's just you know, change your life, change your life, change your leadership, because this is life is too short to suffer. Okay, so the pain in leadership is going to be there always, But the suffering is optional. Okay, So let's go into this episode because this is something that I wanted to talk about with you. And a few weeks ago, one of the directors that I meant for told me about the conversation that completely like through her.
She would just put together a strong case to promote one of her best engineers, a clear path to singer, to staff engineer, to the lead, more scope or visibility, the whole thing. But he turned it down, not because the money was wrong, not because the timing was bad, he said, and I'm paraphrasing falsely, bats this is what I remember. I don't actually want more people depending on me. I want to keep building things and go home at five.
And she told me that she didn't know what to say because in her head, this was the reward, the next rock. Why would any one say no to that and that conversation or the next level of the conversation. So I have your engineer or staff engineer, and I want for them to be promoted to team leads, but they turn it down. They don't want to do it.
And this conversation is happening more and more across tech teams right now, and most leaders don't have a framework for it, because the ladder they climb isn't the ladder the person in front of them wants to climb. So here's what's actually going on. A lot of your you adviselve included. We build the entire understanding of career growth around a specific model.
Individual contributor, leads, manager, director, VP, each ranked meaning more scope, more people, more visibility, more responsibility, and that model work for us, you and me. It is probably how you got to where you are right now. But a meaningful and growing number of ICs, especially newer ones entering the field right now, don't share that assumption. Some genuinely don't want to manage people.
Some have watched managers on their wrong teams get squeezed between leadership pressure and team will being and decided that's not the trade they want. Some define a good career by depth of craft, autonomy, and time outside of work, not by title or headcount. This isn't laziness, and it isn't a generational insult. Whatever framing you might have heard elsewhere, it is a different value set.
And here is a trap. If you keep offering the only kind of growth you know how to offer, and they keep declining, it, you'll start reading their disc engagement as a problem with them, when there it is actually a problem with your assumptions and the system. So here we go again with the contracting, and this is a contracting failure at its core, specifically the kind where you assumed a sure definition of a word growth without ever actually checking it. Do you have a definition of growth in your head?
More responsibility, more people, more title. You've been operating us if the definition is universal and obvious, when in fact it is just yours, shaped by your own path. Nobody ever sat down and made that explicit. So when someone doesn't want what you're offering, it reades confusing or even grateful instead of what it actually is.
Two people who never are agreed in terms the figs start with recontracting and conversation itself, instead of walking in with that growth path already decided, what can with that genuine open question, what does growth actually mean to you? Right now? And let the people answer without steering them toward in reversion of reality and bring the process communicated model there, Because how this conversation lands depends heavily on the personality base and the communication that you're going to tailor to the person, and the genera qua to want question won't work equally well for everyone.
So for someone who's base is driven biologic and competence, so thinker base frame the conversation around mastery and expanding technical debts, not people leadership. If they don't want to do it, they may want to go deeper, not wider. For someone whose base is driven by conviction and value, so the persistor ask directly what kind of work actually matters to them, and be prepared for an answer that has nothing to do with the traditional ladder. For someone whose base needs playful, variety and stimulation, so it's from older or rebel bridgid, five year career plans will feel suffocating no matter how attractive the title is.
They might need growth defined as a variety and new problems that the world the gold progression. So the point isn't to have a different speech for each person. It is to stop assuming there's one universal version of growth and start actually asking and listening without your own plan and path as the invincible default answer or something. So before your next growth conversation, catch yourself if you are working in with the outcome already decided, if you've pre written the promotion case, before you've asked what they actually want, you're contracting from your assumptions, not their actual needs.
The second what you can do ask the direct, open question, what does a good next two years look like to you? In your own words, not mine, not the organization, yours. Then let the silence set, don't fill it with your own framework. Third, build at least one visible non management growth track on your team if you don't already have one.
More scope and heart technical problems, ownership of a domain, mentoring without formal reports. If the only visible world ward is management, you're forcing a choice nobody should have to make. And number four. When someone declines the traditional path resists reading it as a lack of ambition or engagement, ask what they're optimizing for instead.
Usually there is a very clear answer, and it usually makes complete sense once you hear it. You just don't know it yet. So this week, pick one person on their team whose ambitions you've been assuming rather than asking about, have an actual of the actual conversation. Ask what growth means to them, specifically in their words.
You might be surprised. You might learn the latter you've been a hurrying was never the ladder. They were trying to plan and it's completely fine. It is not about you, it is about them.
And this is it for today. So thank you for listening to this episode. I believe it. It is very very meaningful because we have so many assumptions about growth and believes how growth should look like and what is actually important for people, and we don't ask enough.
So start let's start asking more. This is it. So thank you very much for your time and to invest it in in listening to this episode. Surely episode with one person who might actually use it.
Other leader that assume more than ask, especially this that is frustrated that people don't want to grow, don't want to learn, they want to get promoted just straight away. Let's have more more of it outside of only our relationship between me and you. So thank you very much for today and I'll see you very soon in another episode on the LAMANTHEC Leadership Podcast. Bye everybody.
Other episodes covering the same guests and topics, from across The B2B Podcast Index.
#174 | A-Players, Task Monkeys, and the AI Reckoning w: Francis Brero (VP AI Strategy @HG Insights)69 / 100
#173 | Tech Leadership Q&A: How Do I Get My Team to Just Do Their Job Without Checking on Them Constantly?46 / 100
#172 | What Silicon Valley Taught a Tech Analyst About Marketing, Authority, and Never Burning Bridges w/ Mark Vena73 / 100#171 | Tech Leadership Q&A: Am I Actually Good at This… or Did I Just Get Lucky?47 / 100
#170 | From Startup Garage to Microsoft MVP: How Continuous Learning Builds Unbreakable Tech Leaders w/ Amit Chandak, @ex-Oracle, @Kinerika74 / 100
