Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonw | Hacker News Reader

I really dislike the term "individual contributor".

I know it's an industry standard term for anyone who doesn't have direct reports, but it feels very inaccurate to me.

Just because an engineer doesn't have direct reports doesn't mean they aren't exhibiting all kinds of leadership behavior that elevates their contributions above the level of "individual" - teaching, mentoring, strategy work, leading projects.

I don't have a good suggestion for an alternative term though.

View on HN

> Just because an engineer doesn't have direct reports doesn't mean they aren't exhibiting all kinds of leadership behavior that elevates their contributions above the level of "individual" - teaching, mentoring, strategy work, leading projects.

That's a good point, but in my experience "individual contributor" is just a code phrase for "not managing direct reports".

Being an IC doesn't mean you're not contributing leadership or strategy, it just means that you're not doing hiring/firing or performance reviews of direct reports.

Yeah that's how I understand the term too. So it's an effective piece of language, I just dislike it!

Yes, but at a lot of larger companies and perhaps the vast majority IC is code for "them".

"Us" is management BTW.

As someone who has also been on the journey from early employee into project and team leadership, a formal management role, and then back to individual contributorship, I kind of agree, though at the same time I also don't really care about the title, and I know that being a "senior" or "staff" level individual contributor clearly implies a bunch of those other pieces, including things like soft leadership, independence to pursue strategic initiatives, etc.

Yeah, titles like "staff engineer", "principal engineer", etc. are good because they imply expertise rather than responsibility for direct reports.

Eh, it's kinda like the term "stakeholder." It just reeks of bureaucratic bullshit, but otoh it's a very real important concept that we just don't have another good word for, so we stick with it.

Think of “contributor” as the key word in the term. It covers all that leadership.

Then note “contributor”’s absence from “manager.” :)

Maybe technical contributors? You're right. In the most efficient organizations, leadership lets the technical decisions bubble up from the experts, rather than dictating them from the top.

I've definitely been in a company where they referred to me pointedly as an IC, as a way to signal they were not interested in me taking on tech leadership roles. I got the fuck out.

I agree about the IC terminology.

The best I've seen so far is "maker" vs "manager"

Ooh, I think "maker" would be a good word for it, though it's pretty inextricably tied to hobbyists.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com