When I authored this piece in 2022, it served as a personal reflection — a documented decision to transition out of a senior leadership position. At the moment, the choice appeared unconventional. Colleagues questioned why an executive on a clear upward trajectory would proactively step aside. But three years later, data reveals, this personal recalibration has become part of a larger movement.
Generated with AI ∙ 11 November 2025 at 06:03 am
Looking At My 2022 Decision from 2025 Link to heading
Back then, I decided to focus on authenticity — returning closer to the product and regaining depth lost to titles. Now, the global numbers show I wasn’t alone.
According to DDI’s Global Leadership Forecast 2025, 71% of leaders say stress has significantly increased since taking their current roles. At the same time, 57% of Gen Z professionals actively avoid management positions, even when they come with higher pay. And there’s reason for it: managers who step into their first leadership job today earn an average 11 % salary increase — but most describe the shift as “high-stress, low-reward.”
Over 1,800 CEOs have left their posts since the start of 2024 — the highest number recorded since 2002. Some were pushed by activist investors; others simply burned out.
The distinction is clear: involuntary departures are reactive. In contrast, my transition was an intentional, strategic risk mitigation, not a retreat.
The False Choice Between Impact and Title Link to heading
We tend to confuse influence with authority. But real impact rarely comes from org charts.
Recent Russell Reynolds data shows that internally developed CEOs stay longer (8.7 years) than external hires (7.3 years), suggesting that depth and continuity outperform external “big title” jumps. Similarly, 43 % of senior executives now report symptoms of imposter syndrome — often because they climbed faster than they grew.
In 2022, I wrote that I wanted to work where the product meets reality again. In hindsight, that instinct aligns with what organizations are formalizing now: parallel career paths that value technical directors and domain experts as much as general managers.
Seventy-nine percent of today’s technical directors come from deep system engineering backgrounds, compared with 68 % of CTOs. Companies have realized that sustainable excellence doesn’t always require another layer of management — sometimes it requires letting specialists lead by craft rather than by headcount.
Stepping Back Is Strategic Advancement Link to heading
In 2022, I thought of my choice as stepping down a rung. That’s how becoming a director after I was a CTO felt like. Today, I’d call it strategic repositioning.
Leadership models are shifting from ladders to portfolios. People rotate between influence, creation, and mentorship — not always upward, but forward. Average CTO timelines show it takes about 12 years after a Director or VP role to reach the C-level sustainably. Those who move too fast often burn out early or plateau. Taking time to deepen technical and strategic range isn’t a delay; it’s an investment.
Data also shows that technical directors influence roughly 23% of vendor-selection decisions in large organizations, despite appearing in only 20% of final approval chains. Influence, it turns out, doesn’t need a title — it needs presence and credibility.
The Contrarian View Link to heading
There’s a temptation to turn this into a generational story about younger professionals rejecting management altogether.
But the truth is subtler. A recent Glassdoor analysis shows Gen Z enters management at about the same rate as previous generations. The difference isn’t ambition; it’s intentionality. People are choosing roles that align with their energy and values rather than defaulting to the next title.
My 2022 step back wasn’t a protest against leadership. It was a decision to lead differently — through competence, clarity, and impact rather than positional authority.
Looking Back, Looking Forward Link to heading
Generated with AI ∙ 11 November 2025 at 06:03 am
I’ve learned that stepping back isn’t the opposite of progress. Sometimes it’s what allows you to keep progressing at all.
The leadership stress index has risen 71% since 2020, yet only 30% of leaders report having adequate time for reflection or renewal. In that light, stepping back wasn’t a loss — it was an endurance strategy. It created space to think, to build, and to stay relevant without burning out.
Three years on, the “step back” stands out as a needed correction: career growth is shaped by deliberate decisions, not by collecting titles. The key takeaway remains: intentional choices, not titles, define long-term impact.
Postscript: Link to heading
The industry now calls this “conscious unbossing.” I still just call it thinking clearly.