4 ms·

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 p

by 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.
- majormajor 8y ago
  > 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. I've seen this go roughly. A director who brings in a lot of new technical views, challenging the perspectives and opinions held by the team, might not have an easier time than a staff engineer. The director was largely right, but dealt not just with technical resistance but with more political fallout of having disgruntled employees reporting to them. Forcing change isn't easy. It can pay well, when upper management knows someone needs to take on that role, and doesn't have anyone already doing it, but authority alone won't solve your problems. Especially if your management doesn't want to be seen as the bad guy themselves.
  - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    The difference is usually in terms of negotiating details about the budget & resources you’ll have when you join, your own much larger severance package or equity package with acceleration provisions, etc. Based on the degree of resources they put into you at a director level, the option is disallowed for other people to fail to work constructively to onboard your new ideas / approaches. Definitely still may not work out, but it’s a different ballgame than a high level engineering hire, which (however foolish) many companies will still view like they are sweetening some pot just with the title and don’t have any plans to honor the agreed nature of the role.
  - matwood 8y ago
    If it is going roughly that's on the director. Soft skills come into play when trying to make changes. IMO, "forcing" change means there are already leadership skill gaps with the director.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    Authority certainly helps. It's not everything but without authority you almost have no chance.
    - benc666 8y ago
tetha 8y ago
I mean I'd consider myself somewhat experienced with the tech I have. But practically speaking, if you have a company with a somewhat established technology stack - or 2 or 3, commonly called legacy of some degree. How would you have a thoroughly constructive opinion on moving the tech stack away from legacy and towards a more productive situation, without understanding the needs, situations and interactions of a company? And this takes time to learn. In fact, even just learning the needs, goals, capabilities of different teams in an org just takes time to learn. Sometimes the path forward is to tell everyone to just do it. But no one talked with each other and thus, this never emerged.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  This. This really is the value add and it's unique to every company, so it just takes time to learn.

by d4mi3n 8y ago

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.

majormajor 8y ago
> 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. I've seen this go roughly. A director who brings in a lot of new technical views, challenging the perspectives and opinions held by the team, might not have an easier time than a staff engineer. The director was largely right, but dealt not just with technical resistance but with more political fallout of having disgruntled employees reporting to them. Forcing change isn't easy. It can pay well, when upper management knows someone needs to take on that role, and doesn't have anyone already doing it, but authority alone won't solve your problems. Especially if your management doesn't want to be seen as the bad guy themselves.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  The difference is usually in terms of negotiating details about the budget & resources you’ll have when you join, your own much larger severance package or equity package with acceleration provisions, etc. Based on the degree of resources they put into you at a director level, the option is disallowed for other people to fail to work constructively to onboard your new ideas / approaches. Definitely still may not work out, but it’s a different ballgame than a high level engineering hire, which (however foolish) many companies will still view like they are sweetening some pot just with the title and don’t have any plans to honor the agreed nature of the role.
- matwood 8y ago
  If it is going roughly that's on the director. Soft skills come into play when trying to make changes. IMO, "forcing" change means there are already leadership skill gaps with the director.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Authority certainly helps. It's not everything but without authority you almost have no chance.
  - benc666 8y ago

tetha 8y ago

I mean I'd consider myself somewhat experienced with the tech I have. But practically speaking, if you have a company with a somewhat established technology stack - or 2 or 3, commonly called legacy of some degree. How would you have a thoroughly constructive opinion on moving the tech stack away from legacy and towards a more productive situation, without understanding the needs, situations and interactions of a company? And this takes time to learn. In fact, even just learning the needs, goals, capabilities of different teams in an org just takes time to learn. Sometimes the path forward is to tell everyone to just do it. But no one talked with each other and thus, this never emerged.

james_s_tayler 8y ago
This. This really is the value add and it's unique to every company, so it just takes time to learn.