4 ms·

You describe a bad implementation of top level IC. They same way, it can be someone from the top management who has no clue about individual teams, makes dump d

You describe a bad implementation of top level IC. They same way, it can be someone from the top management who has no clue about individual teams, makes dump decisions that hurt your team. Top ICs work together with ICs that represent their teams, so that they can make informed decisions. They are up to date with technologies (this must be an obligatory requirement), code regularly, so they are much better then managers to make efficient company wide technical decisions, own the architecture of the whole system or large parts, organise and overlook large and expensive engineering initiatives, drive prototypes and research projects. They must me accountable for being up to date, understanding the consequences of their decisions, getting feedback from managers and engineers - not turn into “astronauts” in some years. I think ICs should go in parallel with engineering management in the reporting chain: the top IC reports to CTO, next level reports to directors, etc. This ensures that IC’s scope of responsibilities is expanding and they have better visibility and power.

Denzel 7y ago
You didn’t contradict anything I wrote.
mikehollinger 7y ago
> I think ICs should go in parallel with engineering management in the reporting chain: the top IC reports to CTO, next level reports to directors, etc. This ensures that IC’s scope of responsibilities is expanding and they have better visibility and power. That’s how it works at IBM. I’m the “responsible” party and technical leader for a couple of teams working on related projects. I report to a program director who reports to a VP. My peers are line managers and other senior tech leaders. Part of what’s great about the team that I’m in is that we ha e clear talent pipelines that show how you can matriculate upward in design, engineering, or management, and that a “band 10” of engineering is equivalent in scope, comp, influence, and autonomy to his or her manager equivalent or design equivalent. That extends into the executive ranks as well though it’s more common to find people who hold dual roles of VP and Fellow or Director and Distinguished Engineer or Distinguished Designer.
- playing_colours 7y ago
  Exactly, it is similar to my position at some previous company: as a tech lead I reported to a Director of Engineering who also managed a few engineering managers. The top IC tech guy - “Chief Architect” reported to CTO.

Denzel 7y ago

You didn’t contradict anything I wrote.

mikehollinger 7y ago

> I think ICs should go in parallel with engineering management in the reporting chain: the top IC reports to CTO, next level reports to directors, etc. This ensures that IC’s scope of responsibilities is expanding and they have better visibility and power. That’s how it works at IBM. I’m the “responsible” party and technical leader for a couple of teams working on related projects. I report to a program director who reports to a VP. My peers are line managers and other senior tech leaders. Part of what’s great about the team that I’m in is that we ha e clear talent pipelines that show how you can matriculate upward in design, engineering, or management, and that a “band 10” of engineering is equivalent in scope, comp, influence, and autonomy to his or her manager equivalent or design equivalent. That extends into the executive ranks as well though it’s more common to find people who hold dual roles of VP and Fellow or Director and Distinguished Engineer or Distinguished Designer.

playing_colours 7y ago
Exactly, it is similar to my position at some previous company: as a tech lead I reported to a Director of Engineering who also managed a few engineering managers. The top IC tech guy - “Chief Architect” reported to CTO.