| > It's a standard industry term It's a relatively new term. The first mention on HN is about 10 years ago. According to Google Trends the usage took off in 2009[1]. > if you want to change that I have a problem with the adjective "individual", not with the "contributor" part.
This term tries to achieve two things: 1. a better sounding term to a lowly "worker" or "non-manager", to make people feel good that they're not managers. 2. trying to put an artificial cap on the "contribution" part: i.e. as individual you're limited on the amount of value you can create for the company. The reality is some developers contributing 3x as much as 9-5s (putting 10x developer anecdotes aside). 3. it implies that managers are contributing much more than non-managers. In some multinationals there are 17 levels deep hierarchies of managers which adding net negative value to the companies they're "managing". > No well managed, well planned organization wants 'shadow' or 'dark' management to be occurring, even if it might be. There are lots of "shadow"/"dark" (think implicit, unwritten) processes in any organization, and without them no organization will be able to function effectively. Famous example is British postal strike, when the mail stopped being delivered once the postal workers started working strictly according to the rules. For many corporate IT systems there is a "dark" IT app, like work-related WhatsApp groups. For every Jira ticket here are probably several "dark" tickets. For every middle manager, there are senior "IC"s who are fixing the holes by doing "shadow" management. -- [1] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=individu... |