Oftentimes, I've found that management operates from a position of informational advantage, while a person on a parallel technical track at the same level has access to a lot less information. Hence the question.
Funny thing is, they weren't the most influencial people, they just got a problem and solved it.
If the times were though, they sometimes even were "set free" because they company could operate without them, just don't do much new stuff anymore.
I'd share the details of the managerial bands if they were considering a switch, but to date they've been very clear that they're happy staying technical.
Of course engineers don't help themselves at all with all the open-source "software should be free" and feel-good "anyone can learn to code" stuff they come out with. If you won't put a cash value on your work, why would they?
If it matters, it was a company that sold software primarily to large banks globally.
The management track doesn't work that way; we need to level up our games, and then wait for an opportunity to arise due to corporate growth or turnover. For example, I'm getting coached to take over the CTO slot, but there's no reason to believe that I'll ever get the opportunity, because there's no reason to believe the existing CTO will ever give up their job.
I make slightly less than our highest paid engineer.
I would recommend finding a company with a true parallel track, rather than dedicating yourself to a job that you don't want, and thus likely won't ever be great at.