Take a look at most companies, and compare the quantities of director/VP equivalent engineers to the number of engineering directors and VPs. In my experience, there are many many more of the latter, if only because orgs want to build out the org chart and so there's a natural place and need for those roles, and because there are basically default title bumps that come with the increased responsibility.

Sure. But that's not relevant to the argument being had. Growth beyond a certain point in management being easier, while perhaps true, isn't the same thing as claiming that swapping from IC to management is, alone, a promotion.

the original comment said "you'll watch them rise further and futher in the company hierarchy while you're enjoying your "parallel track"", and the comment i replied to disagreed.

the question was about "parallel track", and i don't see how you can conclude that they're parallel: it seems to me that the IC path is circuitous and takes a lot longer to get anywhere on.

put another way: imagine that you had no preference over the work, were equally good as both IC and manager, and wanted to optimize for career progression. you would _always_ prefer management. and in fact even if you'd make a better IC than a manager, to a large extent you'd still profit more in management.

i agree that it isn't necessarily a promotion to move from IC to manager. but it also _isn't_ a parallel track: by moving, you've moved to a track which is much more direct.

This is my experience as a staff dev in an org with this type of org chart. Staff devs are considered lead engineers with no reports and sit in most of the lead meetings.