A couple of other points that struck me as different from my experience, and maybe more a function of where this person is working rather than some fundamental difference between the roles:

The idea that your word is taken more seriously as an EM rather than an IC when it comes to (for example) needing to test more.

I have to admit that this may have been one of the reasons I felt the need to switch to a management role myself (I was an IC that had recently been promoted to a staff level role and subconsciously I felt like I lacked credibility and hiding behind a title would help me get some). In practice that turned out not to be true -- I didn't need to do that at the time, and now as an IC in a different company, my thoughts and feedback are taken seriously at an organisational level and by my peers.

The fact that you have to stack rank and pick an under-performer every half is just broken. I know it's a sad reality of performance management in a lot of places but it's not a universal truth that you will have to do that as a manager. Statistically, you can't avoid having difficult conversations about real performance problems, but there are companies where managers don't have to have the "everyone else on the team did better than you this half" conversation or the "I had to pick so this half you got the short straw" conversation.