[re-thc]

> and we need to value ICs more

Maybe start by getting rid of the silly term - "IC". What's the difference between a product, project, sales and a people manager? They all manage something.

It's people's egos and lust for power that makes this distinction.

[falcor84]

I'm against euphemisms in general and don't think we should be changing this word either.

As I see it, an IC is anyone whose main contribution is through artifacts or other actions they perform directly, and a manager is someone whose main contribution is through coordinating the actions of others. As such, I'm absolutely ok with "project manager" and "product manager" even if people don't report to them directly.

If you have a better term, do go ahead and propose it, but let's not throw out this useful term just yet.

[willcipriano]

If we are merely IC's when it comes time to get paid, why aren't we all IC's when it comes to returning to office?

[rjtavares]

Again, the problem is the "merely". Sports stars are ICs and they're well paid.

[willcipriano]

I've only seen people get upset when others act like ICs on sports teams. "Ball hog" and the like. I don't think that's a example of one.

[rjtavares]

That's a misunderstanding of what IC means: "an employee responsible for performing specific tasks or functions within an organization without the authority to manage other employees". Keyword is authority, not leadership or teamplay.

Perhaps we need a better term, but the concept itself is fine.

[rjtavares]

The distinction is useful because people managers have some specific tasks related to HR processes. The fact that the distinction has an ego implication is the problem, not the distinction itself.