I disagree with this. I think there are a lot of people who don't like being a leader for lots of reasons... but every time I've promoted a reluctant leader it's been magical for that person and for their team. A lot of times the people that self-promote and like to be in charge should never, ever be given athority.

> I am very skeptical of new technologies

I used to think that way until I realized that in a lot of cases, we've been re-inventing the same concepts in computing since the 1960s. I think a lot of the re-invention is really being driven by hardware capabilities, languages and fashion. We're seeing it with Rust right now - let's rewrite all the things in Rust! Underneath it all, though, the payoff for using new, less capable tech, is that eventually it will pass up the old in a very meaningful way - and when it does, systems build on the old are washed away.

I was hired at my last job by the then new CTO to lead the “cloud application modernization” effort as they were pivoting to providing access to micro services to large health care companies.

After being somewhat successful at it, he offered to make me a team lead (been there done that). I told him in no uncertain terms that I would quit first. We had a great working relationship.

I now do basically the same thing in the consulting department at BigTech as a middle level hands on consultant.

I asked a year end could my position be considered a “terminal position” or would I need to work toward a promotion. My manager asked me why. Again I was very honest. I needed to know because I would be looking for another job before seeking a promotion. He said it could be a terminal position,

I prefer leading projects over leading people.

I often hear the argument that there is nothing really new in programming and that everything was already done in some way or other back in the 1960s.

I completely disagree with this and find it harmful. There is genuine innovation and new research happening in computer science all the time. The example you gave, the Rust language, is based on linear type theory that was first developed in the 1990s. Nothing like it existed in the 1960s and that is why it offers real improvement to software development.

Today, software development is slow, buggy, expensive and late. We owe it to ourselves to continue to research and search out ways to improve our craft. And this is happening. Newer programming languages and tools DO incorporate innovations from recent computer science research and are better for it. We should celebrate this rather than cynically pretend that all computer science research halted in 1969.

> I disagree with this. I think there are a lot of people who don't like being a leader for lots of reasons...

Note that you are talking about different things from OP.

OP was talking about managing, you are talking about leading. These are two very distinct skills. Sometimes you can find both in the same person, but these people are few and far between, since each of these roles is already a full time job.

Everything I've experienced in my professional life has taught me this: managers who can't lead can't manage, and leaders who can't manage cannot lead. Never once have I worked for a manager who didn't see themselves as a leader, and never once have I met someone who called themselves a leader who wasn't management.

People who are stellar managers, have extremely high empathy and EQ, understand their engineers, prop them up, help their career, guide them toward both professional and personal growth. They also did not have a single ounce of leadership or charisma in them, very low technical chops, no vision, and not interested in providing team leadership.

I've also met stellar leaders, visionaries, who inspired, entranced teams with every single word that came out of their mouth. They provided short and long term directions, technical and product guidance, motivation. And they were absolutely terrible human managers. Could not place themselves in other people's shoes. Didn't really care about managing the career or growth of people on their teams. Were only focused on matters that did not involve any human feelings.

These kinds of people both have their places and they complement each other wonderfully.

And sometimes, you find these two very distinct, polar opposite qualities, in one single person. But like I said, this is much more the exception than the rule.

And of course, the reality is that most people lie on a spectrum between these two extremes.

A leader can lead initiatives just via building relationship and having expertise without role power or any reports.

It's not that difficult if you actually can make decisions quickly. It only gets difficult once you are in a bigger company where you have multiple more or less competent stakeholders and every decision get accompanied by multiple meetings.