Hopefully someone can assist with the relevant citation for me, but I recall reading Mythical Man Month and thinking about the insights Brooks had from IBM(?) where they had two tracks managerial and technical. Generally you were expected to be an expert in one and not both, based on the belief that that you can't spend enough time on both to be more than mediocre at both.

I've had the fortune to lead a small team and be responsible for junior analysts and whilst it was neat to be able to train them and form an effective team, I got really bored being away from technical challenges. I personally wouldn't want to be a manager but I really value good managers for being able to handle all the politics, team interactions, meetings, project prioritisations and all the other stuff that is needed.

The proposition that managers should be de facto paid less than technical experts isn't something I agree with. I'd suggest the amount of management a particularly strong set of technical experts needs is actually significantly higher and more complex than a team of mediocre techies as they will need interactions with folks higher up the company and the pressures are greater. Such a person needs to be very skilled at management and their pay should reflect that.