Expecting a talented software engineer to "upgrade" to become a manager of a development team makes exactly the same amount of sense as expecting a talented accountant to gain a bit more skill and suddenly become a lawyer.
Actually just writing code at Google is, from my experience, a small part of the job and not rewarded. The faster you get out of writing code and get into designing and delegating it, the better you're off. Sucks if you don't like it.
Coming up with a way to reward and improve nose to the grindstone technical contribution seems to me key to having an effective organization.
EDIT: also consider, doing management or team lead at a company like Google is so different from, say, a small company, that the trajectory may make no sense for somebody. Before I came to Google I felt myself on a career track that was team-lead/architect focused, mgmt interest, etc. Once I got there, that evaporated. I just couldn't imagine myself doing that kind of work in this large of a company.
That was one of the primary reasons I stayed a contractor most of my career.
Might be time for me to revisit that, this being the year when I really think I need to start something new. I have no idea how to make that switch though.
Are you contracting through your own business, or someone else's?
If you are thinking of contracting/consulting, I'd highly recommend joining a diversified team in the 10-100 range so you can do the parts of the work you love and rely on your team for the rest.
In my case, it was usually a contracting company with 10-100 contractors working for one or more client companies, but the contractor had 0 day-to-day influence on the work I did. (I did try to pick up my paycheck in person and chat with the office staff.)
Essentially since you are contracting, you are outside of the "bubble" where decisions regarding business get made. So while you may have important work on the project, you are not there when they are deciding on business aspects of it, you are usually not invited to any type of sales meetings or meetings with the clients. This is reserved for company people.
Another aspect you can do is that you can outright reject that type of work or slowly move away toward a client that is not requiring that type of work. When you are working in a company, you usually do not have power to do that. Your only option in a company is usually to quit and then hope next company doesn't pull you into that meatgrinder.
The down side is that you don't have any direct influence on those business decisions. (At one point, I wrote about three different login/single-sign-on clients for a web app infrastructure (including Kerberos/Active Directory) before they finally decided that SAML2 was politically/technically the right choice. Frustrating.) You do have indirect influence if you have a good relationship with your team lead, who will likely be a "real person", a real employee.
For me, getting into it was easy. I packed off a resume to several of the local contracting companies. They pass the resumes to the ultimate company, who will do an interview (usually very low stress because it's easy to get rid of you) and then the contracting company and the employer work out all the details. (It may have changed, but at the time of my last such deal about 2005, the contracting company absorbed about 15% of what the end company was paying for you.)
Do realize that you need to keep at least 6-9 months of your income in a readily accessible account (savings, money market, or (whoo, I'm old) CD). I never went for more than a week before I could another job, but I have known people who had more trouble.
I have since gone into federal government contracting, which is another whole bag of stinky fish heads.
Part of that is that the big companies typically hire suits to do management - which were basically the jocks in high school that always got the girl... that type - they run everything in the world now. Loud mouth tech bro asshole types.
Underdiscussed IMO. It's not a dichotomy.
Some sports, most coaches came from players, but the NFL notably does not.
I can't think of any sport where players are expected to become coaches.
In amateur sports it's common. E.g. in rowing, cycling, fencing, cross country skiing, etc., people are generally expected to coach at some point. Albeit usually while they're doing the sport, and not necessarily as their primary careers.
This does, however, not necessarily mean that everyone is a good coach, nor does it mean that everyone should stop practicing what they're doing and focus solely on coaching.
Not everyone wants that though.
I guess if there is an accounting analogy, it would be selecting one accountant to work closely with the government to ensure that the tax law is fully understood and to watch the other accountants to ensure that they are following that tax law, reducing the inefficiencies of all the accountants in a firm needing to spend their days acquiring a perfect understanding of the tax law and not spending their days doing the practical accounting work.
It’s an art and a science. So I much prefer the comparison with pro athletes who become coaches or actors who become directors.
It is not that all or most engineers would be good manager, but without that background you are guaranteed to not be good.