[ambicapter]

It depends on the size of what you want to accomplish. If you're happy only accomplishing what one (even superhuman) individual can do, then you're all set. Necessarily, if you want to accomplish things that only a team can do (larger or more complex projects), you're going to have be able to manage people other than yourself.

[jonas21]

On the other hand, there are many projects where an average team of engineers will fail, regardless of how good their manager is, but that one talented individual contributor (or a handful of them) can successfully deliver. Managing more people doesn't necessarily mean having a larger impact (even indirectly).

[matwood]

> On the other hand, there are many projects where an average team of engineers will fail, regardless of how good their manager is

I'd love to see some examples of this because IME it's not true. Great managers/leaders take normal teams and make them successful. Rarely can a single great team member or a great team succeed over a poor manager (unless they essentially start managing themselves).

It reminds of the old adage about great football coaches. The great coach will take his team and beat yours, and then take your team and beat his. Leadership and management is all too often underestimated by engineers and that is to their detriment.

[geomark]

Successes as an individual contributor are a great feeling, but not to the level of the amazing feeling you get when you successfully execute a strategy that requires coordination of a large number of people to perform a complex task.

I'm all about the feels.

[ilyanep]

But...am I accomplishing those things, or am I going to a lot of meetings about how to make the customer feel good about the things we accomplished?