Directors fill the gap between VPs who won't manage ICs and teams that need coordination across multiple product areas. They exist because of promotion rituals, ego, and organizational dysfunction.
Directors exist because of structural dysfunction in how tech companies organize work. They manage multiple PMs across a product area that's too meaty for a single PM but not important enough for a VP to touch directly. It's a layer that emerges when you have VPs who refuse to manage individual contributors and organizations that can't let engineers make their own decisions. The role is less about unique value and more about filling gaps created by ego and fear.
The functional difference between directors and VPs is telling: directors remain internally focused while VPs operate externally. Directors aren't comfortable managing executives, GTM teams, or building market presence. They're stuck in the middle, translating between their teams and leadership, but not actually wielding the external influence that would make the role strategically valuable. It's a holding pattern for people being groomed upward.
We'd need fewer directors if companies fixed four underlying problems. First, kill the promotion humiliation ritual that forces companies to create new layers just to reward people. Second, VPs need to get over themselves and manage ICs directly when it makes sense. Third, engineering teams should be empowered to decide what to build and be held accountable for those decisions. Fourth, EPD organizations are full of people who are afraid to talk to executives, customers, or sales teams. Directors become the social buffer for teams that should be talking to stakeholders directly. The role is a symptom, not a solution.
Check out the full stdlib collection for more frameworks, templates, and guides to accelerate your technical leadership journey.