> If you don't suck at management, your team inevitably grows

Inevitably because why?

> those who suck at management

If higher management can figure out not to put more people under them, why can't it figure out to remove the existing people under them?

> those managing dead-end projects on dead-end teams

If "dead-end" just means "not growing" then that sounds fine. When a company does thousands of things only a small fraction of them need to be growing.

> those who desperately cling on to the engineering past and actively refuse to take on more people

"Desperately cling" is a wild way to refer to someone sticking with a job they like. And if they're a TLM it's not the past, it's the present. Wanting to keep your present job is very normal.

And is the end goal to have zero TLMs in this expanded team? If you're going to pick new TLMs to go under the one you push into higher management, what's bad about leaving them in place and putting someone else above them?

Look, I'm trying to describe reality; you seem to be expecting me to defend it. But briefly:

> Inevitably because why?

Because proven, effective managers are always in short supply, so when you hire new people, or if any of the existing managers leaves, it's the default pick.

Plus, most people want to make more money over time. And on the management track, this means angling for that director / VP role down the line, even if it wasn't your childhood dream.

> If higher management can figure out not to put more people under them, why can't it figure out to remove the existing people under them?

They can, but in big and / or growing companies, performance problems are addressed less vigorously than they probably should. This cuts both ways: neglecting problems is wrong, but cutthroat performance management makes people cranky too.