Definitely, but the point is that technical people shouldn't feel like they need to take the managerial route to "get ahead". In the same vein, managers should become managers because they are good at managing people and not because they are the smartest people in the room.

That is what I mean by attractive; whether one path gets you ahead significantly better than the other. Otherwise people will flock to the attractive path, leading to a worse overall outcome for the organization.

It's a bit like making sure the characters in a game are balanced so the game "works".

I guess it depends on what you mean by "getting you ahead". It takes a mature and confident organization to implement this type of strategy for sure and allowing people, who are not managers, to make some of the strategic decisions.

Not GP but isn't it obvious? Compensation, future prospects.

If managers are paid more you're putting a price on how much someone has to dislike managing people or prefer spending their time ICing for someone else. I don't think many people will pay much (in opportunity cost) for that.

And probably more significant than the initial bump for many is when they're looking for the next job elsewhere, and can say 'led a team of x many' vs. not.

"technical people shouldn't feel like they need to take the managerial route to "get ahead". "

In most companies that's definitely the case. You can make way more as a mediocre manager than as an outstanding IC.

Does "get ahead" mean only salary level?

Most technical people I've met who bemoan the "fact" that they would make more at their company as a manager (mediocre or otherwise) would also have the option of moving companies and/or industries to a technical role that pays better. And yet, they don't. Mostly because it turns out the preference isn't just about $$, but about all the other factors (I don't want to move, I don't want to work on X, I only want to work on Y, it's too big, it's too small, they don't give enough holiday, whatever).

So what it really comes down to is that they disagree with the company about how it values their relative contributions. Which is obviously fine, but do you really think the average IC has the data or experience to evaluate this well? Many of the rants I've heard along these lines were pretty naive about the business.