I think it's pretty common to talk about "management career path" and "tech lead / architect career path", and I think it's a mistake. I think there should be three paths: manager, TL/architect, and individual contributor.
I wish Google (I work there, opinions my own) had three ladder flavours for engineers, not two. If we did that, in Google terms (ref. http://levels.fyi), I think:
- the IC ladder should go from L3-L6, maybe L7
- the TL/architect ladder should go from L5-L11 (note overlap with IC)
- the Management ladder should go from from L5-SVP/CEO
(I don't know the numbers for SVP, but I'm guessing ~13 or so...).
And I replied to the comment:
I’m not happy with the ‘bunch of scientists claiming crazy stuff’ bit. I’m especially unhappy about these scientists still teaching classes, or worse, leading sections of hospitals.
If they are correct, let’s research this more. If they are not, let’s have a proper refute and be done with it. If their research and methodology are ‘so flawed as not to be worthy of a proper refute’, why does anyone publish their papers and why aren’t they promptly thrown out of their respective academic organizations?
I wish Google (I work there, opinions my own) had three ladder flavours for engineers, not two. If we did that, in Google terms (ref. http://levels.fyi), I think: - the IC ladder should go from L3-L6, maybe L7 - the TL/architect ladder should go from L5-L11 (note overlap with IC) - the Management ladder should go from from L5-SVP/CEO (I don't know the numbers for SVP, but I'm guessing ~13 or so...).