[chii]

So basically, to advance in career as an IC, you're effectively relying on the good graces of your employer (to have a track for you to advance in).

I think that's a sad reality.

I much prefer a craftsman style - where your output is what's valued. It's similar to an entrepreneur, but does not require the IC to have skill in anything else but his craft, and outsource every other part of running a business.

[brmgb]

> So basically, to advance in career as an IC, you're effectively relying on the good graces of your employer (to have a track for you to advance in).

I understand what you mean and understand your frustration with the article. It makes the mistake of confusing advancing your career and getting a new title and introduces a career ladder out of thin air before presenting as the career ladder.

Still, I think you are complaining about the wrong thing in that advancing your career does indeed mean convincing the people employing you that you could do more and are worth more. That's the only way to get more money and responsibilities which is what people usually mean when they talk of advancing their career. So, if you don't want to manage people, well, you have to build some kind of expertise which the place you work for values because if it's not valued, you are going nowhere.

[jonathankoren]

Yes, the IC track is political just like the M track, at just that it’s less transparently so, and with less control.

[joshuamorton]

Figuring out what output the organization values (or, convincing it to value a certain kind of output) is a political challenge. If you simply want to build a thing, devoid from the whims of three organization you're in, you'll eventually have a bad time.

[disgruntledphd2]

In order to maximize your chances of being a technical leader, you probably need to become a consultant, which definitely isn't for everyone (especially if you hate business development).