5 ms·
Separating those who manage vs those who don't and calling them an ic misses the company wide impact an ic could and should be making. Those who manage are oft
by ipaddr 5y ago
Separating those who manage vs those who don't and calling them an ic misses the company wide impact an ic could and should be making. Those who manage are often labelled as multipliers but the truth is they may be multipliers or dividers within the same group. From a scale of doing harmful to everything possible -1 to 1 multiplier effect per person on average is 0 and .999 for the best.
- x3n0ph3n3 5y agoYeah, my VP and I have been talking about my promotion to a senior-staff level position and have been discussing with the SVP how the culture of senior-staff/prinicpals being so hands-off from IC work is a serious waste of talent. We are actively shaping my new role to be much more hands-on than other senior staffs are often expected to be.
- lhorie 5y agoI mean, I think you kinda need to look at historical context too. Traditionally, "leadership" meant managing people pretty much exclusively. What is colloquially referred to as the "IC route" is a relatively new way of recognizing ancillary responsibilities that employees at senior level start to undertake to "dabble" into leadership, especially if you have the more progressive view that leadership is about facilitating rather than imposing. I think there's still value in EM roles in the sense that I feel that communication about large scale strategy tends to flow more freely among managerial-oriented roles, whereas ICs have a tendency to "silo" more.