Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ChiMan 554 days ago
The way to see this is that we’re all individual contributors, from the janitor to the CEO. Because if you’re not an individual, then what are you? And if you’re not contributing, then what are you doing there? When you manage a project or team, you’re just individually contributing in a different (though usually overlapping) way.

Also, it’s helpful to remember, when delegating, that one reason you’re probably managing is that you either have tired of running your brain in fifth gear or, at your age, can’t. So the way you contribute is, in general, by applying the hard-won lessons gleaned from your time on the brain-speed freeway while letting others, whose brains naturally run faster, either because of youth or disposition, do the fast-brain work.

Personally, I don’t generally enjoy managing in part because brain speed, which I value, seems to slow further because of the nature of manager or executive work. When I’ve gotten a taste of management and spent time on calls with other managers and executives, I was shocked to discover how slowly (and often haphazardly) they thought through problems that were quite understandable in an instant or two spent alone. They were all very smart people, and yet the managing—or, more likely, the group settings of meetings and calls—seemed to trap their mind, eventually habitually, in a socially constructed box from which they couldn’t escape.

4 comments

They are taking so many more factors into account that you don't see. It's like a junior engineer saying, why not just bang out the code? You're missing all the long term impact.
I hate the term IC. Its often used in a semi-derogatory context.

Ah, I was wondering what was going on with my brain since I became a manager.

Seriously though, I've known some people who are managers and extremely fast/strong thinkers. Yes, the nature of the job requires more of the big picture and less of the details.

In what context is IC every used in any derogatory fashion? In my experience "Manager" or "People Leader" is far far more derogatory.
It implies the persons' leverage is limited to only what they personally do. That's obviously false. A non-manager engineer can have broad scope in putting in a proper architecture, in mentoring others, in cross-team communications. I would go as far as saying there's virtually no engineer whose impact is limited to themselves. They have a harder job since they need to affect change without having official authority to affect change.

The term's very existence it puts people in a certain bin. Why is a CEO not also an "individual contributor"? They're an individual. They contribute. It's just newspeak.

I've never thought of management positions in an organization to reflect something derogatory. But maybe to some.

What's a better word than IC? :-)
> The way to see this is that we’re all individual contributors, from the janitor to the CEO. Because if you’re not an individual, then what are you? And if you’re not contributing, then what are you doing there? When you manage a project or team, you’re just individually contributing in a different (though usually overlapping) way.

The difference is in how your performance is judged. ICs are judged by their individual contributions, hence the name. Managers are judged by the performance of their team/department/organization/company. It's not enough to say, as a manager, "I personally ran the sprint meetings and did 1:1s and performance reviews so therefore I'm doing a good job."

The individual work managers do is much harder to tangibly measure. Things like establishing a culture, balancing your roadmap between one-off customer requests and internal production vision (and hacking in some AI crap to make your CEO happy), hiring the right people. Just doing the table stakes individual work of managing your direct reports' vacation time, promotions, and running team meetings is really only good enough for beginner, first-level line managers at bigger companies, where they just need people to execute established processes.

> Also, it’s helpful to remember, when delegating, that one reason you’re probably managing is that you either have tired of running your brain in fifth gear or, at your age, can’t.

ehhhhh. Management is a lot more reactive, that's true, but saying it requires less brainpower isn't true. As a manager you're constantly context switching. You don't just care about the codebase and solving one specific problem, you also care about sales and marketing, your customer support team, the budget for next year. You're getting slack messages from executives who need an update right now on your project, at the same time as an engineer needing to talk because their partner just filed for divorce and they need mental health days (and you need to support them while also figuring out how to rebalance their workload). It's a very different way of working that uses very different parts of your brain. But it's not just sitting in the executive bathroom and delegating work while you smoke a cigar.

Management might feel frustrating to those who thrive on fast, solitary problem-solving