The very fact of calling "computer programmers" as "ICs" is part of this syndrome, I'm not sure exactly when it started showing up, I'd say it was popularised by FAANGs, so maybe 2015-2016-ish?

▲

mjr00 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

ICs aren't just computer programmers, they're designers, sales, marketing, customer support, etc. It's just an easier term for people who aren't managers than "not a manager".

▲

Ancalagon 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is IC offensive? I’ve never considered it to be. “Resources”, on the other hand, feels very offensive.

▲

frmersdog 7 months ago | parent [-]

Well, taken at face value, it is a bit of an oxymoron. To contribute is to be part of a group; by definition, a contributor can't be wholly independent, because they're adding to a corpus, not producing it by themselves.

▲

dullcrisp 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

Oh, I take it the other way. To me it implies that management doesn’t contribute anything on their own, which is kind of true but also kind of a funny phrasing.

▲

reshlo 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It stands for Individual Contributor, not Independent Contributor.

	▲	xboxnolifes 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		I don't read it negatively, but to play devil's advocate here... Managers are also individuals who are contributing to the group corpus. They just do it by interfacing with people instead of code. Though, that's just semantics on the naming. IC just means not having direct reports.

▲

cudgy 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

True. Who is not an individual contributor? I find the term meaningless.

▲

sokoloff 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

I've heard the term (or "individual contributor") since at least the first dotcom boom in the late 90s.

	▲	bitwize 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		It's been in use in engineering for decades now. My father was familiar with the term in his career, and he's pre-boomer.