7 ms·

The problem with dedicated IC career paths are that they aren't respected outside of core tech companies. At some point if you want to switch industries you cou

by extr 3y ago

The problem with dedicated IC career paths are that they aren't respected outside of core tech companies. At some point if you want to switch industries you could be looking at a massive pay cut. I noticed this in FAANG. Okay, you get to IC8, you're a master of the universe. Realistically you can only take that credibility with you to other FAANG. If you're a manager/director, you can take that with you anywhere and the comp bands will be more comparable. There are of course exceptions if you are a true rock star and have worked on/led household-name projects as an IC. But again, if you jump ship, you might end up in a manager-esque role anyway. Once you reach a certain level of seniority/experience you are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role of "leader" than anything you can do with your hands on the keyboard.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rqtwteye 3y ago
That's definitely the case at my company. To get to the same pay grade that even mediocre managers get promoted to by default, an IC basically has to walk on water.
- seneca 3y ago
  It's a supply/demand issue. There are piles of ambitious engineers who want to be staff+, and not that many instances where it's needed. Contrary to popular narratives, management outside the c-suite is a mostly a thankless grind with no glory. Getting competent people to do it requires some major incentives, and every team, at every level, requires management.
  - RhodesianHunter 3y ago
    This has been the exact opposite of my experience. There is an endless availability of engineers who can push JSON to an API, but people who can lead a team, handle cross team comms, architect, and code the hard problems are fairly rare. This is why they command salaries comparable to specialist doctors. Meanwhile, MBAs are an endless resource, given that that and Law School are the default for people who haven't figured out what they want to do in undergrad.
    - extr 3y ago
      The thing is though, most of the time you really do just need to push JSON to API. Your average non-tech company doesn't need hardcore grizzled IC veteran who can code hard problems and architect. They would rather just hire a good manager, an architect, and some mid level people to muddle through. Hyperscale is not a widespread need outside of FAANG.
    - derek1800 3y ago
      A competent manager of a software team or org should also be able to do all the things you mention for ICs minus the coding part while also inspiring, leading, people managing. Hiring an MBA to lead/manage a software product group and engineers without those capabilities is asking for sub par results.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    > Contrary to popular narratives, management outside the c-suite is a mostly a thankless grind with no glory. I would be thrilled to take on my VP or SVP's "thankless grind" for just 25% of their salary. There are probably many more like me lined up, too.
Dowwie 3y ago
I'm curious what percentage of tech managers at FAANG were IC8 prior to becoming managers
- abc_lisper 3y ago
  That's easy. Its 0.00001%
karmakaze 3y ago
[disclamer: I'm at Shopify and haven't read the post.] I agree with that, but my experience has been on the flip-side. At other companies when I get beyond staff level I've been expected to manage people, when my strength is on the technical side. Being able to lead technically and elevate the tech level of teams is more effective and rewarding for me. There are other ways to force-multiply without being a chain-of-communication person: > Once you reach a certain level of seniority/experience you are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role of "leader" than anything you can do with your hands on the keyboard.
- jghn 3y ago
  > Once you reach a certain level of seniority/experience you are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role of "leader" than anything you can do with your hands on the keyboard. This is the key statement. People don't like to hear this, but the reality is that it becomes incredibly difficult to move the needle to a sufficient degree as a high level IC. There are people who can pull this off, but the number of people who believe they can are orders of magnitude different than those who actually can. For almost all people, all paths to be worth the lofty title involve being able to have an indirect influence on a larger sphere of influence as their hands on keyboard results only go so far. And however one wants to slice it, these paths start to sound like the types of things that people say they don't want to do when they decry "management". Influencing people, politics, mentorship, building trust & alignment, etc. Leadership roles provide a clear path forward for this, but while there are other ways they tend to still get poopoo'd by the "I just want to code!" crowd. Mind you, there's nothing wrong with "I just want to code!", I'm currently in such a phase myself. One just needs to be realistic about what that means for their progression.
  - RhodesianHunter 3y ago
    > but the reality is that it becomes incredibly difficult to move the needle to a sufficient degree as a high level IC. I think this is entirely dependent on industry and company size/stage. Anything from a well funded startup to a high-growth pre-IPO "unicorn" will likely gain much more from a very senior engineer than from a "leadership" hire. An existing fortune 500? Yeah you're probably right.
mox1 3y ago
I would argue the high-end IC career path isn't really respected in general at F500. I have worked for multiple large public companies. Most of the time the highest tier IC role consisted of the grizzled veteran engineers who were there forever, but disliked managers (and management in general). They were usually a bit dis-disgruntled as well (probably because they were stuck in that role!). They were never promoted or moved into management, because they were too highly compensated to make it work. Basically if you dont "hop" to management in the first 1-6 years into your career, it quickly becomes too late. After years of discussion about this with my manager, I recently accepted a low level managerial role at my current company. It was a large step down title wise (from highest level IC title to low level manager title). The only reason I did this was because HR agreed to let me keep my current salary (albeit "frozen" until I get promoted).. I found that in general the pay for entry level tech manager was a large pay-cut for me , but I was also under qualified for type of Director role.
- pavel_lishin 3y ago
  > They were never promoted or moved into management, because they were too highly compensated to make it work. Or maybe because they had no interest in management work?
  - p1necone 3y ago
    Yeah I would never want to be a manager. My career is writing code/building software. I like doing that. Pay me according to my ability to ship good code and don't ever make me manage people please.
    - ZephyrBlu 3y ago
      The thing is that you are almost never compensated on your ability to ship good code, you're compensated on your ability to create business value. More business value usually means owning and leading more scope, not better/more code.
      - 3y ago
marcinzm 3y ago
>If you're a manager/director, you can take that with you anywhere and the comp bands will be more comparable. That is not my experience. FAANG pays significantly more for the same level of management.
- extr 3y ago
  FAANG does pay more, perhaps should I have made the point differently. Perhaps what I meant was: TC for mid-level manager/director at FAANG = TC for high level manager/VP/C-suite in non-FAANG TC for maxx level IC in FAANG = Doesn't exist! The ceiling for manager is higher and is actually possible, whereas you will literally never make an IC8 TC as an IC outside of FAANG, no matter what.
  - mavelikara 3y ago
    This is true in my experience. But it is a feature, not a bug. FAANGs, and SV more generally, have figured out how to leverage the effort of top-quality engineers to create tremendous business value. This is reflected in the performance of these stocks in the public market. Other parts of the economy do not have the need for such high levels of technical skills. They simply don't know what to do with it! Hence they cannot pay ICs as high either. We will eventually get to a point where few engineers, controlling larger number of computers, can produce significant business value. IC salaries will rise then.
martythemaniak 3y ago
OTOH, does any company outside of Big/Medium Tech have the work and compensation available to take advantage of an IC8?
ska 3y ago
" you are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role" Isn't this sort of the point? It's not a matter of respect so much as impact. Having say director level impact as an IC requires working on the right sorts of problems, at the right sorts of scale, in an organization that is structured to take advantage of it. It shouldn't really be surprising that this doesn't describe most positions.
sfn42 3y ago
> Once you reach a certain level of seniority/experience you are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role of "leader" than anything you can do with your hands on the keyboard. This doesn't make sense to me. How? If I'm really fucking good with software development, how does it make sense to have me do something other than software development? If we were talking about tech lead or architect type positions I'd be in agreement, but what force are you multiplying otherwise? The leaders in my company don't do any force multiplication. They just handle the shit we don't want to deal with, like talking to clients and being middle men. I don't see how a good developer is any better at any of that than some random person you pull off the street and I'd go as far as saying the dev is wasted in such a role. Grab someone with a business degree or some other bullshit who wants to do this stuff. Even the people who used to be devs quickly lose touch with the dev role once they transition to management.
- claudiulodro 3y ago
  > The leaders in my company don't do any force multiplication. They just handle the shit we don't want to deal with, like talking to clients and being middle men. Removing distractions and time-sucks from the engineers is a force multiplication though.
  - sfn42 3y ago
    Not of the developer's force. He has a hugely valuable skill and it's just deteriorating while he isn't using it to create value. Like I just said in the message you responded to, anyone can do that role. It doesn't have to be a dev.
- marcinzm 3y ago
  >The leaders in my company don't do any force multiplication. They just handle the shit we don't want to deal with, like talking to clients and being middle men. The goal of engineers at a company is not to write code but to generate some type of business value. Making engineers more efficient at generating business value by understanding client needs or coordinating across departments is force multiplication.
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
> If you're a manager/director, you can take that with you anywhere and the comp bands will be more comparable. You think if you're an L8 manager at Google, you're going to get hired at some ecom hotdog startup and not take a MASSIVE pay cut?
paxys 3y ago
The reason for this is that the skills of an IC at that level are simply not needed at most companies outside of ones that have pure tech as their differentiator. What would a consulting body shop do with a rockstar engineer who invented a programming language or scaled a database to a load previously considered unachievable or created a new industry-standard cryptographic algorithm? A manager who can work a team of 5 junior-mid level engineers to the bone to meet an arbitrary client deadline with "good enough" work is a lot more valuable.
hintymad 3y ago
> The problem with dedicated IC career paths are that they aren't respected outside of core tech companies. I think it's not about FAANG vs tech vs other sectors. It's about blow-out growth vs no growth. An IC has great value only when a company needs her to build something that directly impacts the top line. Otherwise, an IC is just a cog in giant machine. Of course, some ICs are so good that they can create opportunities in a well-established organization, but they are exceptions.

by extr 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rqtwteye 3y ago

That's definitely the case at my company. To get to the same pay grade that even mediocre managers get promoted to by default, an IC basically has to walk on water.

seneca 3y ago
It's a supply/demand issue. There are piles of ambitious engineers who want to be staff+, and not that many instances where it's needed. Contrary to popular narratives, management outside the c-suite is a mostly a thankless grind with no glory. Getting competent people to do it requires some major incentives, and every team, at every level, requires management.
- RhodesianHunter 3y ago
  This has been the exact opposite of my experience. There is an endless availability of engineers who can push JSON to an API, but people who can lead a team, handle cross team comms, architect, and code the hard problems are fairly rare. This is why they command salaries comparable to specialist doctors. Meanwhile, MBAs are an endless resource, given that that and Law School are the default for people who haven't figured out what they want to do in undergrad.
  - extr 3y ago
    The thing is though, most of the time you really do just need to push JSON to API. Your average non-tech company doesn't need hardcore grizzled IC veteran who can code hard problems and architect. They would rather just hire a good manager, an architect, and some mid level people to muddle through. Hyperscale is not a widespread need outside of FAANG.
  - derek1800 3y ago
    A competent manager of a software team or org should also be able to do all the things you mention for ICs minus the coding part while also inspiring, leading, people managing. Hiring an MBA to lead/manage a software product group and engineers without those capabilities is asking for sub par results.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  > Contrary to popular narratives, management outside the c-suite is a mostly a thankless grind with no glory. I would be thrilled to take on my VP or SVP's "thankless grind" for just 25% of their salary. There are probably many more like me lined up, too.

Dowwie 3y ago

I'm curious what percentage of tech managers at FAANG were IC8 prior to becoming managers

abc_lisper 3y ago
That's easy. Its 0.00001%

karmakaze 3y ago

[disclamer: I'm at Shopify and haven't read the post.] I agree with that, but my experience has been on the flip-side. At other companies when I get beyond staff level I've been expected to manage people, when my strength is on the technical side. Being able to lead technically and elevate the tech level of teams is more effective and rewarding for me. There are other ways to force-multiply without being a chain-of-communication person: > Once you reach a certain level of seniority/experience you are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role of "leader" than anything you can do with your hands on the keyboard.

jghn 3y ago
> Once you reach a certain level of seniority/experience you are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role of "leader" than anything you can do with your hands on the keyboard. This is the key statement. People don't like to hear this, but the reality is that it becomes incredibly difficult to move the needle to a sufficient degree as a high level IC. There are people who can pull this off, but the number of people who believe they can are orders of magnitude different than those who actually can. For almost all people, all paths to be worth the lofty title involve being able to have an indirect influence on a larger sphere of influence as their hands on keyboard results only go so far. And however one wants to slice it, these paths start to sound like the types of things that people say they don't want to do when they decry "management". Influencing people, politics, mentorship, building trust & alignment, etc. Leadership roles provide a clear path forward for this, but while there are other ways they tend to still get poopoo'd by the "I just want to code!" crowd. Mind you, there's nothing wrong with "I just want to code!", I'm currently in such a phase myself. One just needs to be realistic about what that means for their progression.
- RhodesianHunter 3y ago
  > but the reality is that it becomes incredibly difficult to move the needle to a sufficient degree as a high level IC. I think this is entirely dependent on industry and company size/stage. Anything from a well funded startup to a high-growth pre-IPO "unicorn" will likely gain much more from a very senior engineer than from a "leadership" hire. An existing fortune 500? Yeah you're probably right.

mox1 3y ago

I would argue the high-end IC career path isn't really respected in general at F500. I have worked for multiple large public companies. Most of the time the highest tier IC role consisted of the grizzled veteran engineers who were there forever, but disliked managers (and management in general). They were usually a bit dis-disgruntled as well (probably because they were stuck in that role!). They were never promoted or moved into management, because they were too highly compensated to make it work. Basically if you dont "hop" to management in the first 1-6 years into your career, it quickly becomes too late. After years of discussion about this with my manager, I recently accepted a low level managerial role at my current company. It was a large step down title wise (from highest level IC title to low level manager title). The only reason I did this was because HR agreed to let me keep my current salary (albeit "frozen" until I get promoted).. I found that in general the pay for entry level tech manager was a large pay-cut for me , but I was also under qualified for type of Director role.

pavel_lishin 3y ago
> They were never promoted or moved into management, because they were too highly compensated to make it work. Or maybe because they had no interest in management work?
- p1necone 3y ago
  Yeah I would never want to be a manager. My career is writing code/building software. I like doing that. Pay me according to my ability to ship good code and don't ever make me manage people please.
  - ZephyrBlu 3y ago
    The thing is that you are almost never compensated on your ability to ship good code, you're compensated on your ability to create business value. More business value usually means owning and leading more scope, not better/more code.
    - 3y ago

marcinzm 3y ago

>If you're a manager/director, you can take that with you anywhere and the comp bands will be more comparable. That is not my experience. FAANG pays significantly more for the same level of management.

extr 3y ago
FAANG does pay more, perhaps should I have made the point differently. Perhaps what I meant was: TC for mid-level manager/director at FAANG = TC for high level manager/VP/C-suite in non-FAANG TC for maxx level IC in FAANG = Doesn't exist! The ceiling for manager is higher and is actually possible, whereas you will literally never make an IC8 TC as an IC outside of FAANG, no matter what.
- mavelikara 3y ago
  This is true in my experience. But it is a feature, not a bug. FAANGs, and SV more generally, have figured out how to leverage the effort of top-quality engineers to create tremendous business value. This is reflected in the performance of these stocks in the public market. Other parts of the economy do not have the need for such high levels of technical skills. They simply don't know what to do with it! Hence they cannot pay ICs as high either. We will eventually get to a point where few engineers, controlling larger number of computers, can produce significant business value. IC salaries will rise then.

martythemaniak 3y ago

OTOH, does any company outside of Big/Medium Tech have the work and compensation available to take advantage of an IC8?

ska 3y ago

" you are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role" Isn't this sort of the point? It's not a matter of respect so much as impact. Having say director level impact as an IC requires working on the right sorts of problems, at the right sorts of scale, in an organization that is structured to take advantage of it. It shouldn't really be surprising that this doesn't describe most positions.

sfn42 3y ago

> Once you reach a certain level of seniority/experience you are just way more valuable in the force-multiplying role of "leader" than anything you can do with your hands on the keyboard. This doesn't make sense to me. How? If I'm really fucking good with software development, how does it make sense to have me do something other than software development? If we were talking about tech lead or architect type positions I'd be in agreement, but what force are you multiplying otherwise? The leaders in my company don't do any force multiplication. They just handle the shit we don't want to deal with, like talking to clients and being middle men. I don't see how a good developer is any better at any of that than some random person you pull off the street and I'd go as far as saying the dev is wasted in such a role. Grab someone with a business degree or some other bullshit who wants to do this stuff. Even the people who used to be devs quickly lose touch with the dev role once they transition to management.

claudiulodro 3y ago
> The leaders in my company don't do any force multiplication. They just handle the shit we don't want to deal with, like talking to clients and being middle men. Removing distractions and time-sucks from the engineers is a force multiplication though.
- sfn42 3y ago
  Not of the developer's force. He has a hugely valuable skill and it's just deteriorating while he isn't using it to create value. Like I just said in the message you responded to, anyone can do that role. It doesn't have to be a dev.
marcinzm 3y ago
>The leaders in my company don't do any force multiplication. They just handle the shit we don't want to deal with, like talking to clients and being middle men. The goal of engineers at a company is not to write code but to generate some type of business value. Making engineers more efficient at generating business value by understanding client needs or coordinating across departments is force multiplication.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

> If you're a manager/director, you can take that with you anywhere and the comp bands will be more comparable. You think if you're an L8 manager at Google, you're going to get hired at some ecom hotdog startup and not take a MASSIVE pay cut?

paxys 3y ago

The reason for this is that the skills of an IC at that level are simply not needed at most companies outside of ones that have pure tech as their differentiator. What would a consulting body shop do with a rockstar engineer who invented a programming language or scaled a database to a load previously considered unachievable or created a new industry-standard cryptographic algorithm? A manager who can work a team of 5 junior-mid level engineers to the bone to meet an arbitrary client deadline with "good enough" work is a lot more valuable.

hintymad 3y ago

> The problem with dedicated IC career paths are that they aren't respected outside of core tech companies. I think it's not about FAANG vs tech vs other sectors. It's about blow-out growth vs no growth. An IC has great value only when a company needs her to build something that directly impacts the top line. Otherwise, an IC is just a cog in giant machine. Of course, some ICs are so good that they can create opportunities in a well-established organization, but they are exceptions.