| ▲ | paganel a day ago |
| 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 a day 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 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Is IC offensive? I’ve never considered it to be. “Resources”, on the other hand, feels very offensive. |
| |
| ▲ | frmersdog a day 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 a day 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 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It stands for Individual Contributor, not Independent Contributor. | | |
| ▲ | xboxnolifes a day 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 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | True. Who is not an individual contributor? I find the term meaningless. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | sokoloff a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I've heard the term (or "individual contributor") since at least the first dotcom boom in the late 90s. |
| |
| ▲ | bitwize a day 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. |
|
