Engineers do not need management. Investors do.
As I understand it, the purpose of management is to match financial resources with material+human resources to perform feasible tasks. There is nothing here I see that can't be done by an experienced token generator. If anything, automating management seems easier than automating engineering.
As for leadership, it can be done by the investors.
You can automate work but never owning the consequences. AI tasks emerge from human contexts, they perform work in the context and finally the outcomes collect in the context - gains, losses, risks, costs. So AI is great but it needs our skin for the start, middle and end of a task.
It's not as if management owns any consequences. At best they adapt, but so can AI. Management tasks are not like engineering tasks.
As stated in the sibling comment, management is very similar to engineering.
Of course management would like to make that claim, but I don't see it substantiated. In what way is management "owning the consequences" -- are they losing their equity or risking an unpaid suspension?
This is such a simplistic view I have difficulties deciding where to even start. Think of a manager as someone who engineers the fabric of the organization. Most of my time is spent debugging, communicating, finding the right abstractions, configuring processes - all very similar to the engineering work I previously did.
How would an investor see it? If an investor had access to a top-ranked management model, would s/he willingly spend 100x more on a person instead?
Or if you're saying you still do engineering work, then perhaps it shouldn't come with a management title.