I feel good managers often delegate the decision making power to the group or team leads. This creates scale for the manager, and allows room for the developmen

I feel good managers often delegate the decision making power to the group or team leads. This creates scale for the manager, and allows room for the development teams to develop leaders and judgement. Companies that are set up well also give minimal control over bonus allocation or salaries. These things should be controlled by HR and recruiting, along with salary and compensation policies based on role and level. Managers supposedly have the best view on IC performance, so within some band they should be able to influence rate increases and promotions. Anything outside of that would need to be a conversation between the manager/IC and HR. My advise here is if you feel there is a deviation in your pay, get your manager to bat for you, do not go to HR yourself. And by design, management will have access to more information than individual contributors, but that's the purpose of the role. This person brings in information, priorities, and resources to the team to execute. This is where the "power" idea comes in, but anyone in this position long enough would tell you its more of a "responsibility." It's not always clear what is right and what isn't, nor even a way to really prove it ex post facto. Could it give someone enough perspective to make self-interested decisions that ICs could not? Probably. I suppose the question is, is that bad and how is it bad, and how would you eliminate it? Edit: My wishful novelist inside me says its the software program that automates resource allocation, charter, and IC development. You could essentially build an autonomously managed organization with IC roles being the only true human employees.