12 ms·

Individual Contributor. Don't ask me why in heavens that term makes any sense outside one that is myopic or only works with extremely fresh out of school junio

Individual Contributor. Don't ask me why in heavens that term makes any sense outside one that is myopic or only works with extremely fresh out of school junior engineers and unskilled workers. Edit: P.S. Not sure why a couple of people decided to downvote this opinion. Also to other commenters: it sounds to me less as a be a team player title (like the soldier one suggested) and more like an isolated resource that makes interchangeable contributions. Anyways, I think that there is a distinction between "(Team) Lead" and Manager with the Team Lead usually classified as an IC says everything for most organizational approaches. I agree more with the Meta take here.

zabzonk 4y ago
when did this appear? i literally have never seen it before i read this post, and it makes no sense at all to me.
- eftychis 4y ago
  I am not sure. It has been around for at least 5 years I would say. I guess at some point they needed a nice sounding alternative category to people not becoming managers.
- coliveira 4y ago
  This is FAANG speak. They created this role for people who are not (directly) involved in management.
  - zabzonk 4y ago
    so i guess that managers are not individuals and don't contribute? might be true. but i've been a manager and an individual and contributed code. well, who knows?
    - capitalsigma 4y ago
      The point is that ICs are judged based on their individual contributions, i.e. their own code, design docs, etc, whereas managers are judged based on their team's contributions
      - zabzonk 4y ago
        i have never, ever come across a programmer working on a system of any complexity that did not depend on contributions from other programmers.
        newfriend 4y ago
        Why are you being so pedantic? At this point it seems like you're trolling. > so i guess that managers are not individuals and don't contribute? > i have never, ever come across a programmer working on a system of any complexity that did not depend on contributions from other programmers. No one said non-ICs aren't individuals, and no one said they don't contribute. No one said that ICs don't work with others or depend on others. What has been said, several times, is that their contributions (i.e. the code they produce, artifacts they create, etc) are largely individual contributions. They are the ones creating the thing, and are not responsible for others. This gets a bit murky as you move up the IC chain, in that your contributions become less tangible and are in part measured on how you lead others and make those around you more efficient. But your performance is still largely judged on what you produced.
        querulous 4y ago
        the nuance you are missing is that individual contributors are responsible for their own work and judged based on that. they are not responsible for the work of others. managers are of course responsible for the work of those they supervise
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - svachalek 4y ago
      A->B != !A->!B
    - icedchai 4y ago
      As usual, "it depends." Many individual contributors don't actually contribute, either. Some actually have negative net contribution.
    - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
      Lots of people who aren't part of the "working class" do plenty of work but that's the nomenclature society uses for some reason so if you want to communicate with everyone else, you have to go along with it.
- com2kid 4y ago
  It has been in common use for at least 15, if not 20 years. Very common phrase in the tech industry.
  - zabzonk 4y ago
    i have worked in tech for over 40 years at all levels and, as i said, i have never come across the term before today.
    - com2kid 4y ago
      Just in the past week "IC" has appeared in 2 front page stories on HN. Are you US based? Beginning my career in the mid 00s I was exposed to "IC" pretty much day 1 starting at Microsoft. Other people around me in adjacent sectors also use the phrase to refer to non-managers, it is pretty common daily parlance, I am 99% sure I can ask any of my knowledge worker friends and they'll know what I am talking about. Google trends show "individual contributor" has been a pretty popular phrase since at least 2011.
      - zabzonk 4y ago
        no, i am not us based, though i have worked there. but so what? is "knowledge workers" still a thing? it was meaningless when it was introduced in the 60s, even more so now. another bubble creature, i guess.
        com2kid 4y ago
        > no, i am not us based, though i have worked there. but so what? Every country, and even different regions of a country, has linguistic differences. This is true even if all the countries being talked about have the same national language. For example, nobody in the US tech sector is going to know what a Boffin is unless they read The Register. Even on the west coast of the US, vocabulary is different between California and the Pacific Northwest, although things started to merge together when the Silicon Valley based tech companies began opening offices up in Seattle.
prepend 4y ago
I actually like the term as it seems pretty accurate to me and I don’t know if a more accurate term. There’s many types of “managers” who are actually individual contributors (eg, sysadmin, project admin). When you get into principal engineer and architect titles, sometimes those positions manage people and sometimes they don’t. I think it also highlights how one version of contributor isn’t better than the others. Some people only produce value by being part of a team, some produce value by managing, and some produce value direct from themselves.
hotpotamus 4y ago
I've always like the term soldier. It's what organized crime syndicates, armies, and ant colonies all use. The worst is when someone gets called a "resource", but I can't get too exercised about IC.
- Moissanite 4y ago
  As a consultant, I've become accustomed to being referred to as "the resource" by operations people. However, the day an engagement manager refers to me directly as "resource" is the day I openly start referring to them as my secretary.
  - zabzonk 4y ago
    i keep envisaging what some of these uber stupid job names would look like on a business card i might have to give to a client: zab zonk the resource zab zonk individual contributor jesus wept
    - tuckerman 4y ago
      Nobody has IC as a title, it’s a whole class of job families that don’t require/revolve around managing other employees. Data Scientist, Software Engineer, Data Center Technician are all ICs. It’s just a more positive way of saying “not people manager”, especially when you are trying to build a culture that going into people management shouldn’t be the only career path.
      - zabzonk 4y ago
        why do you need to say "not manager"? most people are in the nature of things not managers. and if you do need, for bad, bad reasons want to differentiate them, how about NMs? oh, but that would be to obvious for the current crop.

zabzonk 4y ago

when did this appear? i literally have never seen it before i read this post, and it makes no sense at all to me.

eftychis 4y ago
I am not sure. It has been around for at least 5 years I would say. I guess at some point they needed a nice sounding alternative category to people not becoming managers.
coliveira 4y ago
This is FAANG speak. They created this role for people who are not (directly) involved in management.
- zabzonk 4y ago
  so i guess that managers are not individuals and don't contribute? might be true. but i've been a manager and an individual and contributed code. well, who knows?
  - capitalsigma 4y ago
    The point is that ICs are judged based on their individual contributions, i.e. their own code, design docs, etc, whereas managers are judged based on their team's contributions
    - zabzonk 4y ago
      i have never, ever come across a programmer working on a system of any complexity that did not depend on contributions from other programmers.
      - newfriend 4y ago
        Why are you being so pedantic? At this point it seems like you're trolling. > so i guess that managers are not individuals and don't contribute? > i have never, ever come across a programmer working on a system of any complexity that did not depend on contributions from other programmers. No one said non-ICs aren't individuals, and no one said they don't contribute. No one said that ICs don't work with others or depend on others. What has been said, several times, is that their contributions (i.e. the code they produce, artifacts they create, etc) are largely individual contributions. They are the ones creating the thing, and are not responsible for others. This gets a bit murky as you move up the IC chain, in that your contributions become less tangible and are in part measured on how you lead others and make those around you more efficient. But your performance is still largely judged on what you produced.
      - querulous 4y ago
        the nuance you are missing is that individual contributors are responsible for their own work and judged based on that. they are not responsible for the work of others. managers are of course responsible for the work of those they supervise
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - svachalek 4y ago
    A->B != !A->!B
  - icedchai 4y ago
    As usual, "it depends." Many individual contributors don't actually contribute, either. Some actually have negative net contribution.
  - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
    Lots of people who aren't part of the "working class" do plenty of work but that's the nomenclature society uses for some reason so if you want to communicate with everyone else, you have to go along with it.
com2kid 4y ago
It has been in common use for at least 15, if not 20 years. Very common phrase in the tech industry.
- zabzonk 4y ago
  i have worked in tech for over 40 years at all levels and, as i said, i have never come across the term before today.
  - com2kid 4y ago
    Just in the past week "IC" has appeared in 2 front page stories on HN. Are you US based? Beginning my career in the mid 00s I was exposed to "IC" pretty much day 1 starting at Microsoft. Other people around me in adjacent sectors also use the phrase to refer to non-managers, it is pretty common daily parlance, I am 99% sure I can ask any of my knowledge worker friends and they'll know what I am talking about. Google trends show "individual contributor" has been a pretty popular phrase since at least 2011.
    - zabzonk 4y ago
      no, i am not us based, though i have worked there. but so what? is "knowledge workers" still a thing? it was meaningless when it was introduced in the 60s, even more so now. another bubble creature, i guess.
      - com2kid 4y ago
        > no, i am not us based, though i have worked there. but so what? Every country, and even different regions of a country, has linguistic differences. This is true even if all the countries being talked about have the same national language. For example, nobody in the US tech sector is going to know what a Boffin is unless they read The Register. Even on the west coast of the US, vocabulary is different between California and the Pacific Northwest, although things started to merge together when the Silicon Valley based tech companies began opening offices up in Seattle.

prepend 4y ago

I actually like the term as it seems pretty accurate to me and I don’t know if a more accurate term. There’s many types of “managers” who are actually individual contributors (eg, sysadmin, project admin). When you get into principal engineer and architect titles, sometimes those positions manage people and sometimes they don’t. I think it also highlights how one version of contributor isn’t better than the others. Some people only produce value by being part of a team, some produce value by managing, and some produce value direct from themselves.

hotpotamus 4y ago

I've always like the term soldier. It's what organized crime syndicates, armies, and ant colonies all use. The worst is when someone gets called a "resource", but I can't get too exercised about IC.

Moissanite 4y ago
As a consultant, I've become accustomed to being referred to as "the resource" by operations people. However, the day an engagement manager refers to me directly as "resource" is the day I openly start referring to them as my secretary.
- zabzonk 4y ago
  i keep envisaging what some of these uber stupid job names would look like on a business card i might have to give to a client: zab zonk the resource zab zonk individual contributor jesus wept
  - tuckerman 4y ago
    Nobody has IC as a title, it’s a whole class of job families that don’t require/revolve around managing other employees. Data Scientist, Software Engineer, Data Center Technician are all ICs. It’s just a more positive way of saying “not people manager”, especially when you are trying to build a culture that going into people management shouldn’t be the only career path.
    - zabzonk 4y ago
      why do you need to say "not manager"? most people are in the nature of things not managers. and if you do need, for bad, bad reasons want to differentiate them, how about NMs? oh, but that would be to obvious for the current crop.