[nerdponx]

I think this makes a lot of sense. Management is not "better", it is simply "different".

And in terms of actual value delivered to the business, I doubt that a low/mid-level manager delivers significantly more than an experienced and productive individual contributor.

Organizations need both good managers and good individual contributors. Clearly managers of technical contributors need enough technical experience to make sound management decisions. But that doesn't seem like a good reason to constantly promote people upwards, nor does it seem like a reason to always pay managers more than ICs by default.

However I think in some cases managers end up subject to extra risk if a project goes bad, so they are probably entitled to some increased "hazard pay" for that. (The risk/responsibility structure might be inverted at some toxic dysfunctional organizations, but that's beside the point.)

[joshuamorton]

I agree that inherently management isn't more valuable than IC-ness, but in terms of scope (which is one, though not the only metric for value) it's hard to argue that you have more scope than your manager. They're still responsible for what you're working on. Often more competent ICs are more independent, so this is a bit complicated since a manager of an independent IC can focus more effort elsewhere, but still.

The way I see this usually at places with strong IC tracks and levels is that an L7 IC is payed more than an L6 manager, but its uncommon for the L7 IC to report to the L6 manager. You usually, though not always report to someone more senior than you, and very rarely report to someone less senior.

Also its far easier for a people manager to increase their scope than for an IC to do the same, so in some sense the advancement path is more clear.

[gloryjulio]

All of your points are valid. But here is the catch which many ICs might not realize. There are far more management positions than pure ICs. It's the unfortunate that you be disadvantaged if you stick to strict ICs path. The competition is also fierce. The talented ICs are so far above the rest (the 10x/100x engineers).

It's a simple supply and demand problem. The company needs a lot more of above average managers/hybrids. It's not good for average ICs to stuck to their little world if they want better promotions.

[hellisothers]

Just to clarify when you say IC you mean literally an IC as opposed to the leadership path in an IC vertical? Many companies expect hither level ICs to be leaders in one way or another, you don’t need to go down the management path.

[gloryjulio]

I mean the essence of the problem comes down to people management. If you mean the pure technical role, then yes that's what I am referring to which has far less positions. And usually your competition would be the elites. Because many ICs try to avoid people management.

I am not talking about whether there is a such a path for ICs. I am talking about the numbers problem. The unfortunate truth is that there are far more positions involves people management. Engineering manager is good example because ICs can wield their technical skills. But still, this roles still requires you to do substantial people management.