Maybe start by getting rid of the silly term - "IC". What's the difference between a product, project, sales and a people manager? They all manage something.
It's people's egos and lust for power that makes this distinction.
I'm against euphemisms in general and don't think we should be changing this word either.
As I see it, an IC is anyone whose main contribution is through artifacts or other actions they perform directly, and a manager is someone whose main contribution is through coordinating the actions of others. As such, I'm absolutely ok with "project manager" and "product manager" even if people don't report to them directly.
If you have a better term, do go ahead and propose it, but let's not throw out this useful term just yet.
That's a misunderstanding of what IC means: "an employee responsible for performing specific tasks or functions within an organization without the authority to manage other employees". Keyword is authority, not leadership or teamplay.
Perhaps we need a better term, but the concept itself is fine.
The distinction is useful because people managers have some specific tasks related to HR processes. The fact that the distinction has an ego implication is the problem, not the distinction itself.
Maybe start by getting rid of the silly term - "IC". What's the difference between a product, project, sales and a people manager? They all manage something.
It's people's egos and lust for power that makes this distinction.