[morgante]

A lot of people in this thread are pointing to the possibility of a technical track, but I just don't buy it.

Any technical track stops far short of the management track, even in the most enlightened of companies. Taken to an extreme, you don't get to be CEO off the technical track.

Ultimately, if you want more money and influence, you have to choose the management track. The technical track just exists to keep technical talent from leaving——look at any companies with technical tracks (ex. Facebook) and you won't find their top earners on it.

[tdaltonc]

Some people value autonomy and freedom from obligation more than money and influence.

[morgante]

> Some people value autonomy and freedom from obligation more than money and influence.

Of course I know & respect that. My point is just that having a "technical track" does not remove the incentives many engineers see for moving into management.

[billmalarky]

This is just a matter of scale. Sure you might be a "10x" developer, and such a developer does provide a tremendous amount of value to an organization. But if you are such an effective manager as to raise the value of a team of engineers significantly, then you are going to generally provide more value to the company than a single rockstar engineer. Of course there are outliers (IE Carmack) but generally skilled technical management scales better than skilled individual technical talent.

[cardiffspaceman]

You may be right, but you might find plenty of managers wielding their power and/or influence, who wish they made as much as the guys at the top of the technical track.