[eclectic29]

> These days, the roles I consider are in leadership so if we lack vision and a clear understanding of our value I’m usually empowered to fix that. If you’re interviewing for a more IC role, your hiring manager and teammates being unable to communicate expectations and success criteria is obviously a bigger concern.

So, the author doesn't seem to consider IC role a leadership role. I see, ok.

[safeimp]

I think you're being unfair. It's clear what the authors intention is. They aren't speaking "down" regarding ICs, they're just making their intention clear in terms of the role they're in search of. Yes, ICs can absolutely be leaders in an organization (and _should_ be) but that doesn't change what the role of a leader is or what the author wants.

[greenthrow]

By definition they aren't. That's what the I stands for. Individual as in you aren't leading anyone else.

[karmajunkie]

that isn’t mutually exclusive with leadership. ICs lead by example and mentorship. the fact that they’re not managing people doesn’t preclude being a leader at a company. the way i’ve heard it put for staff+ engs that i like is that they’re managers without reports.

but to speak to GP’s point, they are being a bit overly sensitive. “leadership” in the context of the article likely means C-suite or director level, which usually IS mutually exclusive with an IC role. (and maybe that’s what you meant, sorry for ‘splaining if so)