IC → Manager → IC: What Changed About How I See Work

I’ve had the opportunity to sit on both sides of the table—first as an individual contributor, then as a manager, and now back as an IC again. That round trip changed how I understand work in a fundamental way. Not because I learned some secret about leadership or execution, but because I started to see the invisible system that shapes most outcomes.

A lot of what used to feel confusing, frustrating, or even unfair now feels more explainable. Not necessarily more agreeable—but more predictable. And once you see that layer, it changes how you operate.

1. I empathize with my manager more than I ever could before

As an IC, it’s easy to look at your manager and assume they have significant control over decisions that affect you. Promotions, performance ratings, project assignments—it all feels like it flows through them. That perception creates a natural tendency to attribute outcomes directly to your manager’s judgment or intent.

After stepping into the role, I realized how incomplete that view was. The job is far more constrained than it appears. Managers operate within a web of expectations, dependencies, and limits they don’t fully control. They are accountable for outcomes, but many of the levers that drive those outcomes sit outside their direct authority.

2. Systems and incentives shape behavior more than intent

One of the biggest shifts for me was recognizing how much of workplace behavior is driven by systems rather than individuals. As an IC, it’s easy to interpret decisions as personal—why someone was promoted, why a project was prioritized, why recognition went a certain way.

In reality, most of these decisions are heavily influenced by underlying structures. Performance frameworks, calibration processes, organizational priorities, and incentive systems all play a significant role. Even well-meaning people end up optimizing for the system they’re in, often without realizing it.

3. Most managers aren’t bad actors—they’re constrained actors

It’s tempting to categorize managers into good or bad based on outcomes we experience. If something doesn’t go our way, it’s easy to assume poor judgment or lack of support. That framing is simple, but often misleading.

What I’ve seen more often is that managers are making trade-offs within constraints. They’re balancing competing priorities, limited resources, and expectations from multiple directions. What looks like a poor decision from one angle is often the result of navigating a set of constraints that aren’t fully visible from the outside.

4. Your manager has influence—but not absolute control

Before becoming a manager, I assumed that most decisions about my career were largely within my manager’s control. It felt logical—after all, they were the closest to my work and had direct visibility into my impact.

In practice, many of the most important decisions are shaped beyond the manager level. Organizational calibration, leadership alignment, and broader business priorities all play a role. A manager can advocate and influence, but they rarely have absolute authority over outcomes.

5. “Squeaky wheel gets the oil” is more real than it should be

Most people believe that consistently doing good work would naturally lead to recognition and growth. That belief is appealing because it aligns with a sense of fairness and meritocracy.

What I’ve learned is that visibility and self-advocacy play a much larger role than I expected. In environments where attention is limited and information is imperfect, the people who communicate their impact clearly tend to have an advantage. It’s not that others aren’t doing valuable work—it’s that their work isn’t as visible.

6. Outcomes are less merit-based than I thought—and more system-shaped

This was probably the hardest realization to internalize. ICs believe that outcomes are primarily driven by merit—if you did great work, things would follow.

Over time, I’ve come to see that merit is only one part of the equation. Systems, incentives, visibility, timing, and organizational context all shape outcomes in meaningful ways. Recognizing this doesn’t mean abandoning the importance of doing good work—it means understanding that good work needs to exist within, and be recognized by, the system.

Closing thought

The biggest shift for me wasn’t about becoming a better IC or a better manager. It was about becoming more aware of the environment I operate in. Once you start to see the system, it becomes hard to ignore.

And with that awareness comes a different way of navigating your career. Not more cynical, but more intentional. Not just focused on output, but on how that output fits into the broader system around you.