FWIW many companies have parallel tracks for ICs and management. The upside for ICs is that you can become as senior as a VP with zero reports. The downside is that there is no comp bump just for managing people: it's only extra overhead so it becomes a labor of love at these companies. (You do it because you enjoy shepherding people's careers, not because it will get you a raise.) At some companies I've even seen PMs prevented from managing people until a super senior level in order to keep them focused on execution and the org structure flat (another byproduct of making management offer principally intrinsic rewards is that fewer people do it and those that do tend to be better at it).

Context: employment at both Facebook and Google

In most companies I have seen the technical track is incredibly hard to advance on. You have to be incredibly good to make the same money mediocre managers make.

Sure, but you get to have a lot more fun - so it works out.

Only if you can pull it off which in most companies is unlikely.

My point was, it is fair. If the position is more fun, it's not unreasonable that it doesn't pay as much as other paths.

That is separate from the issue of whether or not the path is available at your company, or for you personally.

I thought people are being paid for the value they provide. Being in a technical role is not just fun and games. There is a lot of responsibility and stress too. I would argue that good technical people provide more value than some middle manager so they should get paid accordingly.

But in general, they don’t. You have to be very, very good for your contributions as an IC to outweigh the value of a merely decent manager.

What I’m saying is they the pay tends to mostly reasonably represent value, in my experience. With a slight discount due to ICs often being bad negotiators (bit so are technical managers). As an individual, you have to consider what the job does for you, not just the other way around. If you want to increase your salary, absolutely you should be considering how you can change what you do to make a compelling argument that you are (or will) bringing more value.

Which isn’t to say that a great IC can’t bring a ton of value - it’s just that they are also rare.

What makes it harder is that typical IC ‘s lack both the visibility and experience to estimate value well (in the bottom line sense). So without infrastructure around it, you are at high risk of spending expensive time on the wrong things.

Seems both of us are saying the same thing: if you want to make more money you probably have better chances to accomplish this by going into management. Going the tech route is harder.

Yes, I think we are mostly on the same page. There are more routes to a bigger paycheck through management. But there are non-management routes for some. Also, very few people are motivated exclusively by salary.

I've heard there are a lot less senior ic roles, than are managing senior roles.

They're much more competitive to get into.

They also don't pay as well and aren't any more respected by senior management, generally, than the most recently intern-to-fulltime hire.

What is IC?

An Individual Contributor - someone with no direct reports.

Individual Contributor