[ochoseis]

> I have seen situations where a single IC is dragging a division of 30 people yet still being compensated for doing the work of one IC.

I have often wondered about this myself, and believe there's some nuance to acknowledge:

- Yes, it is absolutely the case that individuals often carry teams. It does sometimes feel like they're subsidizing others' salaries.

- There's an old adage in advertising that goes: we know 50% of our budget is wasted on ineffective ads, we just don't know which 50%. The same probably holds true for organizations allocating wages.

- People go through different phases of their lives, where they can devote more or less energy to work. This fact may lend credence to a compensation structure that's based on bonuses and equity versus salary. Flat salary bands seem to discourage meritocracy without this adjustment.

- Organizations themselves are also dynamic. Consider a small org seeded by a prolific worker. They make the org successful, so the org grows and necessarily dilutes the talent (i.e. reversion to the mean).

- Does an organization have an incentive to "slow down" it's most prolific workers so everyone else can keep up? Conversely, should they develop a culture that speeds everyone else up?

- Should / do prolific workers self-select into higher-performance organizations, e.g. after getting fed up being a big fish in a small pond?

- Team dynamics are undeniable; consider two prolific workers with different styles clashing.

I personally would love to work on a team of superstars who mesh, and can capture disproportionate value relative to large, slow, mediocre orgs. The hard part is finding one and keeping it together.