Staff+ Engineers Earn 15-25% More Than Engineering Managers - The Track Decision Just Got Easier

General
1

I keep getting asked: “Should I go into management or stay IC?” The compensation data has made this decision clearer than ever.

The numbers:

  • Engineering Manager average: $152K base
  • Staff Engineer average: $280K base (15-25% premium)
  • Director of Engineering: $180K average
  • Principal Engineer: $236K average (30%+ premium over Director)

At FAANG, the gap is even more pronounced. Staff ICs consistently out-earn their manager counterparts by 15-25%, and that gap widens at Principal/Director+ levels.

Why ICs now command higher comp:

  1. Parallel tracks became real - Companies like Google and Meta built legitimate IC ladders. You can be a Distinguished Engineer making $2M+ without managing anyone.

  2. Manager supply increased - More people want to try management. The supply increase hasn’t hit senior IC roles the same way.

  3. IC leverage is measurable - It’s easier to quantify the impact of a Staff engineer’s architectural decision than a manager’s team-building.

  4. Remote work favored ICs - Distributed teams need technical leaders who can drive alignment through code and architecture, not just meetings.

The implication:

If you’re choosing between tracks purely for comp, IC is often the better bet. Management should be chosen for reasons other than money - passion for developing people, desire for organizational impact, etc.

Has anyone made the IC choice primarily for comp? How did it work out?

2

I chose the IC track partly for comp, but mostly because I realized what management actually involves.

My decision process at Senior:

I was offered a path to EM or a path to Staff. The comp difference at the time wasn’t huge (maybe 10%), so that wasn’t the main factor.

What made me choose IC:

  1. Daily work - I looked at what my manager actually did: 6+ hours of meetings daily, performance reviews, hiring loops, conflict resolution, budget discussions. None of that energized me.

  2. Skills I wanted to build - I wanted to go deeper on distributed systems, not broader on people management. IC track let me specialize.

  3. Career optionality - Staff/Principal skills transfer across companies. Manager skills vary more by org culture and context.

  4. The comp trajectory - At Staff+ levels, the IC premium became more significant. The gap that was 10% at EM/Staff became 30%+ at Director/Principal.

How it worked out:

Reached Staff in 3 years after that decision. Comp is higher than my EM peers from that cohort. More importantly, I enjoy the work.

The caveat: This only works if you genuinely enjoy technical work. If you’re forcing yourself to code to chase comp, you’ll burn out.

3

I want to offer a counterpoint: management still makes sense for certain goals.

When management wins despite lower comp:

  1. Organizational impact - If you want to shape culture, build teams, and influence how an entire org operates, management is the path. ICs influence through technical decisions; managers influence through people and process.

  2. Executive trajectory - VP of Engineering, CTO - these are management roles. If you want to run engineering at a company someday, the IC track won’t get you there.

  3. Different leverage - A Principal Engineer’s leverage is their technical judgment. A Director’s leverage is their ability to hire, develop, and retain a team of engineers. Different kinds of impact.

  4. Some people love it - Watching someone you hired and mentored grow into a Staff engineer is deeply satisfying for some people. If that energizes you, the comp difference is worth it.

The comp gap is narrowing:

At many companies, Director and VP engineering roles now include significant equity that closes the gap with Principal ICs. The gap is real but not universal.

My advice: Choose based on what energizes you, not comp. Both paths can lead to excellent outcomes. Forcing yourself into a track you hate for money is a recipe for burnout.

4

From the business side, I want to explain why companies invest so heavily in senior ICs:

The ROI calculation we make:

When we evaluate whether to pay a Principal $500K vs two Senior Engineers at $250K each, the math usually favors the Principal:

  1. Decision quality - Bad architectural decisions at scale cost millions. A Principal who prevents one major mistake has paid for their premium.

  2. Coordination costs - Two people require coordination. One person doesn’t. The overhead of alignment, communication, and context-sharing is real.

  3. Mentorship multiplier - A Principal who levels up five Senior engineers to Staff-level output has 5x’d their investment, not 1x’d it.

  4. Hiring efficiency - One Principal hire vs two Senior hires means half the interview loops, half the onboarding, half the management overhead.

Why we pay ICs more than managers:

Managers create organizational capacity. ICs create technical leverage. In a world where technical complexity grows faster than headcount, technical leverage has become more valuable.

The honest answer: We pay what the market demands. Senior ICs can credibly threaten to leave for FAANG. The premium is retention insurance.