13 ms·

This rings true to my experience. I'm a Staff engineer and of my 40 hour week about 10-15 of those hours are interviews, meetings, and answering questions. Ques

• scarface74 8y ago
  I absolutely hated my job as the dev lead for a medium size ($1 billion in revenue) non software company where we were a “cost center”. I liked helping smart developers who wanted to learn, I liked having a seat at the table to decide my own destiny and the level of autonomy to decide the “how”. I didn’t like the red tape, the political jockeying, meetings and more meetings etc. I wasn’t really learning anything that could keep me competitive in the market. I finished the green field project they hired me for initially, put it on my resume, quickly moved on to a small company and negotiated not to be made a dev lead and said I could help meet their objectives better by being a free agent and moving from team to team as needed and mentoring the younger leads. I absolutely love my job. I have far more influence, autonomy, and a larger voice than I ever did at the larger company I left. I still mentor and advise, but I only have the responsibility as an individual contributor. I also get paid more because everyone including the CxO knows what I bring to the table. I was in a similar position at the first place I worked for after the company I was at for 10 years. I was just a developer but I carried the weight of their biggest customer by myself as everyone else was trying to create the next project. I survived rounds of layoffs until the company folded. Lesson I learned: I like small companies.
  • aqwsedopl 8y ago
    Promotions are just a form of vendor lock-in that (especially) small companies employ to keep people longer. I’ve seen barely two years out of college non cs majors promoted to senior engineer based on finishing some “large project” which anyone else in the engineering team could have done. The real sleezy thing is that by promoting someone to senior who isn’t nearly qualified at all, the company has now made it exponentially more difficult for these engineers to switch companies. Esp funny is the promotion of unqualified individuals to “project lead”. I’ve seen many of these individuals move to next companies and revert back to standard level software engineer. It’s never about titles - you need to be aware that companies are using the titles against you rather than for you. Also it pisses off the engineers in your organization who do deserve a raise to see unqualified promotions. Its a one way ticket for a small company to very quickly lose its true talent (80/20 rule) and talent follows talent. Once you get a few supporting cast leave, even the actually qualified senior engineers won’t want to stick around longer because they will feel intellectually isolated as well as feel like the engineering management are inept.
    • scarface74 8y ago
      I wouldn’t even go that far. The dev lead over one of the teams is far more qualified to be the lead over that team because of his company knowledge - he’s been there for five years. He’s a smart guy but I don’t know how well he would fare outside of our company. This was his only job out of college. I’m one of the three oldest developers - two of us are in our mid 40s and one in his mid 50s. The “architect” is well qualified but he has a lot on his plate. The other dev in his 50s also fought against being made a lead. Edit: I usually don’t comment on downvotes, but I’m really interested in knowing what could possibly be offensive or disagreeable about this post.
    • discordance 8y ago
      This applies at both small and large companies alike
      • scarface74 8y ago
• mxstbr 8y ago
  I think you are right that seniority at the specific company plays a large role. Anecdotally, I was told that GitHub does not hire from the outside above the senior level. Going from senior to principal engineer is expected to happen inside the company.
  • mooreds 8y ago
    Which is interesting to me, because once you get to staff inside such a company, how would you move to a different company? Are you locked to the company because any other move would be a drastic reduction in comp (because it would be a drastic reduction in value)? Or are there transferable skills that are valuable enough that a transfer could happen at roughly the same comp level? I don't know but this is an interesting question in terms of human capital and labor mobility.
    • toomuchtodo 8y ago
      Staff/principal SWE compensation is the premium an org pays for your tribal knowledge, and arguably non-transferable. “Golden handcuffs”.
      • maxxxxx 8y ago
        Outside the big companies in Silicon Valley there are no golden handcuffs for engineers. With each promotion you make just a few percent more.
        • deleted 8y ago
          [deleted]
        • pault 8y ago
          I'm not sure about that. I moved to Austin three years ago and I have doubled my salary twice since I got here.
          • maxxxxx 8y ago
• d4mi3n 8y ago
  In my experience it’s rare for orgs to hire for principal/staff/architect roles. What I’ve seen instead is people getting hired on as senior engineers and get promoted up from there after they’ve settled into the org.
  • sam0x17 8y ago
    And at some places the "senior" engineer IS the principal/staff/architect.
    • d4mi3n 8y ago
      Flat orgs at their finest.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    • sb8244 8y ago
      Company size seems to (rightly) play a role in how many levels there are in the career track. Part of the mentality that the business needs to take off before titles are concerned. However, this would most likely apply to <20 person engineering team. If the engineering team is bigger than that, I'd question why the org structure is flat.
  • mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    I was hired into a company as a staff engineer, and I probably won’t consider it again. The existing engineers resented me for it, though it was super clear that the product was suffering because the existing engineers had serious skill gaps in critical areas. Meanwhile, to other managers & directors, I was just some new engineer they didn’t know, a political unknown quantity. I hit the ground running and earned a lot of technical respect from my teammates, but nobody cares at all about my perspective on architecture, scoping, technology investment, tech debt, etc. They had decided merely by the manner in which I joined to give no credibility to my ideas. The next time I will require the role to be some type of director or IC/distinguished engineer hybrid that is operating with an authority level above that.
• vostok 8y ago
  > In the past year, I have seen less than 5 job posting for a staff engineer. Isn't this "just" a matter of getting leveled at L6/65/etc as opposed to applying to an advertisement that's only looking for staff level engineers?
• maxxxxx 8y ago
  "But I am also at this weird point where I am not sure if the title of "staff/principle" can be transferred to another company. A lot of the value that I add now is because of the historical knowledge I have. What we have tried as a company, what we haven't, why we built some things the way we did, how things work currently, how the politics works and the trust I have built. " This worries me too. Within my company I have a pretty good reputation due to experience but I am not famous in the industry so I don't think any leverage I have my with my current company will translate into finding jobs at other companies. That's a pattern I actually see quite often. People go very high in one company, but when something happens and they leave that company due to layoffs or other reasons they often find jobs only several levels lower and have to work themselves up again.
  • TheGRS 8y ago
    Market forces can be tough to predict. There was a dearth of software engineers in the last 8 or so years and many of us have reaped the rewards. The hacker news articles used to be about switching jobs every 1-3 years to advance your salary and career. I don't see so many of those these days, which makes me suspect that many have found themselves in senior-level or managerial roles that they find satisfying, and maybe some found themselves in architecture roles that are very difficult to advance from (but still pay well).
    • ec109685 8y ago
      I think it more likely companies adjusted their salary bands to be at least in the ballpark of each other, so you either need to move locations or take a “riskier” job if you want an automatic large bump in salary. There are clearly exceptions to this, but in general, companies have started to wise up.
  • analog31 8y ago
    I'm in exactly this situation, at Senior Staff level. It is quite possible that a person is actually getting paid enough to make it hard for them to leave, which seems strange because it's not not the norm. The company may want to keep them because of what they can do for that company, not because of their potential market value to another company. They may know things about you, that are hard for you to communicate in a job application situation, such as how you work with people. I've decided to adopt the attitude: Enjoy it while it lasts, but don't count on it lasting forever. Live a lifestyle consistent with your market value, and squirrel the rest away. I'm also conscious about keeping my tech skills up to date. I'm reminded of an old saying among people in the entertainment business: Think about how you treat people on your way up, because you will meet them again on the way down.
• twblalock 8y ago
  Tribal knowledge is good to have, and inevitable, but it is also a blinder that tends to limit people to a particular set of architectural assumptions, and this gets worse the older the company becomes. It’s also an obstacle to bringing in new people. Some people are able to join a company and expand/modernize/build on the tribal knowledge to make things better. It’s a rare gift but I’ve seen a few people do it. People like that could be a principal engineer at almost any company.
  • gedy 8y ago
    Thank you for the simple description of this. I've struggled to describe what I enjoy (and like to believe I'm good at).
  • dehrmann 8y ago
    I've seen engineering leaders at companies with lots of tribal knowledge who have been there so long and are so committed to and defensive of old decisions that they're net negatives to the company. They're like helicopter architects.
    • firebones 8y ago
      I've seen that too. And I've also seen some of the same people with very adaptable personalities who are continually learning and inquiring and who make working at such places tolerable.
• nickm12 8y ago
  An exception to this is the "boomerang" engineer, who leaves the company as a senior software engineer and is hired back as a principal/staff engineer. At my company, there is a belief that it's easier to become a principal by leaving than by going through the rigorous promotion process.
  • hellisothers 8y ago
    I am also experiencing this and thus am starting to look elsewhere (and others at my co. feel the same), I imagine it’s an industry thing but have been trying to figure out what the root cause is.
    • james_s_tayler 8y ago
      Supply and demand? When you are employed they demand you show up every day and you supply yourself. There isn't an expectation that you wont supply yourself. After you leave but before you are hired back then there is demand but no supply. Leverage I guess. Makes sense to me.
    • Aeolun 8y ago
      Companies always seem to think that the talent is out there. They just don’t have it yet. Sadly it’s often the opposite.
  • hinkley 8y ago
    There’s a five level ranking at my company, and I applied for a level 4 position (I’ve been in level 5 equivalent positions before). My boss somehow talked me into hiring in as a 3 for some reason that I no longer recall. I should have listened to the alarms in my brain. I started mid-year so around 18 months I had to wait for a promotion. My boss quits a couple months before that. 3 years and still a level 3. Gave my two weeks and people high in the pecking order are sad to see me go because I’m good at what I do. Well thanks for the complement, but how about a promotion instead of a heartfelt goodbye? Sometimes it’s not the bureacracy, it’s a boss who either isn’t good at bucking for promotions or burns all their political capital on other things. Other groups get people promoted. Everybody but my boss thinks I’m a level 4 and has for years. That’s how you lose people and never get them back (I wouldn’t want to work for this manager again, not for reasons of aptitude, but simply because he doesn’t prioritize things that I care about).
• 01100011 8y ago
  > I am not sure if the title of "staff/principle" can be transferred It depends on how you got to be a principal. If you fell into the role because of accumulated knowledge and promotions, probably not. If you are self-driven, work to achieve complete knowledge of your company's products and technologies, push for high standards, and can transfer knowledge well to others...yes.
  • hk-mars 8y ago
    agreed
• zuhayeer 8y ago
  https://levels.fyi https://levels.fyi is a good resource to understand where you stand laterally across many companies. Title inflation definitely skews a lot of this. Leveling nomenclature like “principal” and “staff” don’t necessarily correlate across other companies (for example, a senior engineer at Google could come in as a staff engineer or even higher at LinkedIn). But even outside of titles, it’s difficult to become a new player and start from scratch on learning the inner workings of a company. I think the first step is establishing the confidence to make that move if it is going to be better for your career overall.
  • 8note 8y ago
    that doesn't answer whether he'd be able to work the same role at a different company, regardless of name.
  • ajdlinux 8y ago
    It's very confusing reading tech career advice when you come from a company where "staff engineer" is one level above incoming grads and "senior engineer" takes 10 years...
• m0zg 8y ago
  >> I am not sure if the title of "staff/principle" can be transferred It usually can, actually, assuming you're going to a company of roughly the same stature. I.e. if work at a small company, your title doesn't mean much when going to a large company unless you're otherwise known in your field. And if you're a Staff engineer working at e.g. FANG, you can demand the "God Emperor" type title at a small company and you'll probably get it if they feel they need you. The only things that matter are really: 1. Whether you'd enjoy the work 2. How much you get paid Titles are arbitrary and they don't mean anything outside a particular company. Even between otherwise comparable companies there are significant misalignments, see e.g. https://www.levels.fyi/SE/Google/Facebook/Microsoft https://www.levels.fyi/SE/Google/Facebook/Microsoft
  • matwood 8y ago
    I worked with a guy early in my career whose title was "Keeper of the Magic".
• mancerayder 8y ago
  But I am also at this weird point where I am not sure if the title of "staff/principle" can be transferred to another company. A lot of the value that I add now is because of the historical knowledge I have. That happened to me, and in my opinion and experience: . Now you're competing with other managers for managerial roles . The way you sell yourself for a managerial role is different, and in some ways a lot harder, than an individual contributor . You have the option of gunning for 'lead' roles that aren't necessarily managing staff. That's what I do. . You also have the option of architect roles, which is also what I do. You're a higher tier employee now, and you're now competing with others of that tier level. While for most of us it's actually harder, not easier, to find roles that match, the plus side is there's a reputation and comp upside. The exception to the last paragraph are those that constantly broadcast on social media and make a name for themselves that way and doing presentations at conferences, etc. Not my cup of tea, personally.
  • pm90 8y ago
    > The exception to the last paragraph are those that constantly broadcast on social media and make a name for themselves that way and doing presentations at conferences, etc. Not my cup of tea, personally. These are folks who get hired by BigCos as "Evangelists". They're not gunning for the same roles that you are. Oh hey... the system just works! : )
• jameshart 8y ago
  The challenge I have interviewing people for very senior engineering roles is how to tell the difference between somebody who was nearby when some interesting work got done, and somebody who made something interesting happen. What I’m looking for in a principal engineer is someone who turns good teams into great teams; who steers the organization away from disastrous mistakes; who enables the business to accomplish things that, without them, would not have been done. It’s something that comes hard to senior developers, because we’re all aware that every result is a team win. So when you’re asked about a project you worked on, you’ll tell the story all in first person plural: ‘we had to solve this problem, so we decided to use this approach’. When telling that story in an interview for a principal engineer role, make sure you clarify your role. What was expected of you, and how did you knock it out of the park? What parts of the problem did you have to take personal ownership of? Which decisions did you have to go to the mat for, and why were you right? Convince me you are a differentiating factor in successful projects and we’re going to be interested in hiring you. As an interviewer I try to dig towards these things but it is hard and honestly I need some help from the candidate - and at this seniority level I don’t think that’s unreasonable (the candidate should know how interviews work because they’ll have been in the interview chair themselves, right?)
  • dcosson 8y ago
    Just curious, in addition to looking for those things do you do all of the same types of technical interviews for a principal engineer as for other engineer roles? I would imagine a lot of principal candidates are older, maybe a little rustier at the rote algorithm type questions than a sharp new college grad. Do you expect a principal engineer to be along the lines of the best you've ever seen in every category, or do they just need a passing score in the various technical sessions and the differentiating factor is more of these leadership type questions and convincing you about their past successes?
    • scarface74 8y ago
      I’ve been working 20+ years and have been on the job market 7 times and dozens of interviews. I’ve only been asked algorithm type questions twice. The first was back in 1999 at my second job where I would be doing a lot of complex cross platform C and the second in 2016 when I was asked to write a merge sort. I turned down the offer in 2016 to work as a dev lead at another company even though the company doing the algorithm interview both paid slightly more and was a permanent position and the other was contract to perm. It told me a lot about the maturity level of the company that they would ask a senior developer algorithm questions and not architectural questions. I’ve had my share of pair programming interviews and online multiple choice assessments but I’m okay with those.
• mac01021 8y ago
  Tangentially: anyone know where this use of the word "staff" comes from?
  • jboles 8y ago
    In some defence forces there is an NCO rank above Sergeant named Staff Sergeant, is my guess.
• vikas5678 8y ago
  With every organization, once you are part of a product initiative for a few years, this question of "how transferable are my skills to a different domain or company?" is a valid one to ask oneself. Also, it is easy to get so involved in the daily busyness, that your skills might not be transferable. I think spending some time in being curious and learning/investing in transferable skills, and building a "brand" of helping others(either online or in person) helps significantly when it is indeed time to pursue that next opportunity.
• dizzydee 8y ago
  I am a Principal Architect/Engineer at a mid-size company (~200-300 engineers, 1500 total headcount). I would consider myself a Principal Architect, Senior Engineer, Senior Implementation Specialist, Mid-Level Product Owner/Manager and Junior Account Executive when it comes to actual job breakdown on a day-to-day basis. I'm fielding important sales calls with the team, help troubleshoot important implementations with clients, and design systems and generally try to lead the Seniors/Leads across teams towards a common goal. That said, if it really comes down to it, I can also roll up my sleeves and sling some code - usually as effectively as the Seniors/Leads. I actually think the above skills are as transferable as the raw tech skills. At the end of the day, we all have to actually _sell_ software that is useable/valuable to our customers. If you're in the position to prove/demonstrate that it really doesn't matter the stack. Plus, all the failures spanning the XXXXX teams you assist are sure to teach you _something_. (FWIW, the actual teams I interact with are not the original team/product I started at with the company - we were a startup that was acquired)
• cthalupa 8y ago
  >A lot of the value that I add now is because of the historical knowledge I have. What we have tried as a company, what we haven't, why we built some things the way we did, how things work currently, how the politics works and the trust I have built. Outside of the politics and trust portion, most of this should be well documented and not something that relies on a person being around. What's been tried, and why, should all have documentation around it - what worked, what didn't, how the decision was come to, what data points were considered, etc. All of that is valuable, and it should have all been documented along the way to help back up the decision making process to begin with. When the time comes to make decisions in that same vein, people can review the previous process. Maybe they have new information to bring to the table. Maybe they didn't account for something that was considered last time. Maybe the "you" of whatever process is no longer with the company. I'm in a similar position to you. I've made it a mission the past couple of years to try and eliminate myself as a single point of failure for this sort of information. To the second point, just because the job posting isn't there doesn't mean the job doesn't exist. Companies might not be looking to necessarily hire a staff engineer specifically, but could see the value in one if the right candidate appears.
• Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  > But I am also at this weird point where I am not sure if the title of "staff/principle" can be transferred to another company. I can confirm this; about three years ago, I was in a position that was similar to this post's description of a principal engineer - doing a lot of code reviews, meetings across teams, interviewing, etc. I haven't had a similar position since; it's a very er, opportunistic one? In that you need to be in an environment where there is a need for a role like that. It's a role one needs to grow into.
• all_usernames 8y ago
  "Staff engineer" is used differently at different companies. Some, I understand, use that as the external-facing title to mask specific job rules as obfuscation against cold-calling recruiters.