Do you prefer being an individual contributor, manager, or higher? (apply, employer)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Everyone defines success differently. We all have different goals and personalities that push us one way or the other.
Though I'm at a managerial level (in terms of pay scale, not title), I've never once had to manage anyone. Some people have told me that they like managing others, but the vast majority say it's a drag.
I feel like I perform best in the capacity of individual contributor/subject matter expert. I might be OK becoming a manager someday, but it'd have to be in my specific area, and I'd want to oversee no more than 2 or 3 people. I'd still want to delve into the hands-on stuff.
At the end of the day, as a marketing communications/copywriting professional, I like working on the deliverables myself. I think I'd be miserable if I had to farm everything out to my underlings and simply worry about meetings, politics, strategy, and mentoring.
What do you prefer? How has it gone for you as an IC vs. a manager or higher? Any regrets? Is my perception of management faulty?
Individual contributor. If I wanted to babysit I would have had kids long ago. I dont want to be held responsible for a bunch of lazy, inept, drug addled idiots that basically show up for a check today either
I've been a manager for almost a decade but was an individual contributor for many years prior to that. They are completely different skill sets. It's a spectrum though. There are managers who do a lot of individual contributor work because it's part of their job, there are managers who do it because that is what they like to do, etc.
I have a staff of 2 teams, comprising 14 direct reports and a few consultants so 20ish people all together. All solid lines. I have another couple teams with dotted lines. Real management is emotionally taxing and more challenging than being an individual contributor. It's funny that so many think their managers are just obstacles and are like Mr. Magoo. Many managers don't work towards building as a manager because they don't understand the skillset required, and because it is uncomfortable. It takes a certain level of abrasiveness and disassociation to be a good manager. But that abrasiveness needs to be balanced with support and strength. Too many managers try to be a member of the team and pal around with the staff rather than leading them and allowing/encouraging the team to develop their own strong relationships. Lots more to say but bottom line is that many don't have a clue on the qualities of a good manager.
Individual contributor is easier and more pleasant, a lot more comradarie, less lonely, etc. Management is more fulfilling and purposeful but you can't need others - you have to be able to be alone and enjoy being the responsible one that everyone looks to. Kind of like having kids...people who don't have kids are generally much happier but people who do have kids are more fulfilled. People need to be honest with themselves regarding whether they have the emotional strength day after day to be a manager, and if they don't, do they want to acquire that. If the answer is no to both then I advise against striving towards management. It will be a miserable existence. I did not have the emotional strength, I had to develop it through formal training and classes, and through hard work on myself. I made some mistakes and messed a couple people up in my wake. I am a good and strong manager now and it is crazy easy to spot those who are not. You can tell who emanates the personality and who does not. And you can even tell who does not but has the potential Vs. those who do not. I'm almost 50, I see bunches of young people wanting to be a manager and thinking they can. Not a chance for most of them, they would crumble under the weight in less than a week. It takes a lot of development and you have to be committed to building a team, making that team be cohesive, coaching individuals on the team, communicating the right things at the right time, etc. And that team must trust your leadership and respect you. That is hard to earn.
Individual contributor. If I wanted to babysit I would have had kids long ago. I dont want to be held responsible for a bunch of lazy, inept, drug addled idiots that basically show up for a check today either
Well, the level of people depends on the work, the pay, the company, etc. but you are spot on with the general sentiment. It would be your responsibility to develop those people and turn them around and build a team, or tear it down and re-build it. Both pretty painful tasks. Some can find that type of work thrilling and purposeful. Most won't, and most are right. When an employer isn't willing to invest in a person who can manage that, they get a worse environment but it happen all the time.
Pick the right person, pay them well, support their plan, trust the process and their skillset.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,206,701 times
Reputation: 57822
I was at the same employer for 17 years, the first 5 as a contributor, the rest as a manager. Then I quit and bought a business which I ran for 16 years. When that ended up failing in the recession of 2008 I got a jo again, as a contributor, and really enjoyed the decreased responsibility and hassles of management. Then when my boss left, I was asked to apply and after considerable thought, the additional money provided sufficient motivation, I applied and got it. Now 15 years later I'm about to retire, and thinking back about the OP's question, I have a lot of personal satisfaction from hiring, training and developing the many that have passed through my team. About 80% have been promoted internally either within my group or to other departments. Of the 16 I have hired over my time here only one was a dud, and one that I inherited was a performance problem, but ended up quitting. I have a new one starting Monday, who hopefully will be another good choice.
IMO, first level managers have it worst. They have to manage their own staff while also usually having to deal with unrealistic expectations from those above them.
Everyone defines success differently. We all have different goals and personalities that push us one way or the other.
Though I'm at a managerial level (in terms of pay scale, not title), I've never once had to manage anyone. Some people have told me that they like managing others, but the vast majority say it's a drag.
I feel like I perform best in the capacity of individual contributor/subject matter expert. I might be OK becoming a manager someday, but it'd have to be in my specific area, and I'd want to oversee no more than 2 or 3 people. I'd still want to delve into the hands-on stuff.
At the end of the day, as a marketing communications/copywriting professional, I like working on the deliverables myself. I think I'd be miserable if I had to farm everything out to my underlings and simply worry about meetings, politics, strategy, and mentoring.
What do you prefer? How has it gone for you as an IC vs. a manager or higher? Any regrets? Is my perception of management faulty?
I am happiest in my work when I work for myself. I cannot stand all of the corporate garbage with HR, having to get vacations approved, and attending mandatory meetings and trainings that have nothing to do with the actual work (like too much DEIB training; some is necessary, but a lot of places are going overboard on it). Likewise, I hate the fact that a manager can decide my fate when that manager may or may not be qualified to judge the quality of my work because they may or may not have been promoted into their positions simply because they worked somewhere for X number of years and not because they have managerial skills.
I am happiest in my wallet when I work for an organization that pays me fairly, with paid time off and good insurance coverage, so that I don't have to spend any time doing the thing I hate about freelancing, which is chasing money owed me. But I wouldn't want to be a manager. It's a different skill set and just as I don't want to deal with corporate nonsense as someone who is managed, I wouldn't want to have to inflict it on others as a manager.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
