3 ms·

I believe the point being made is that 5 years isn't really enough to call oneself senior, especially if 2 of those years is in a very narrow focus with little

I believe the point being made is that 5 years isn't really enough to call oneself senior, especially if 2 of those years is in a very narrow focus with little to no consideration for the larger picture required.

BurningFrog 7y ago
So maybe there are still interns, they just have a fancier title now?
closeparen 7y ago
The meaning of a job title is encoded in your company's performance review and promotion system criteria. All other beliefs about what a title "should" be are just noise. For us, "senior" means "promoted twice" i.e. by first building a successful small system and then by building a successful medium system, with the first having not imploded yet, and your peers and stakeholders generally happy.
- gambiting 7y ago
  Also, at some companies getting promoted is the only way to higher pay, and you have to promote people so they don't leave due to financial factors. It can be the only way around brick walls set up by HR("no, we can't give this guy a $5k raise, but we can promote him to senior and give him a $5k raise" - logic)
  - andreareina 7y ago
    Yeah that's a good point.
- andreareina 7y ago
  I would agree if it weren't for the baggage that gets attached to the "senior" and "junior" titles. I'll admit to having my own -- otherwise I wouldn't be here arguing about it, haha. Mostly I feel that "senior" is more likely to trigger overconfidence and "tin god" personas; conversely "junior" is a classification I feel people tend to be too much in a hurry to shed. These are obviously traits of the people exhibiting the behavior, and not the fault of the terms themselves, however it is not inappropriate to take human nature into account. Accordingly I am wary when the title is tossed around lightly. In general I do agree that titles are mostly arbitrary and useful just as an org-specific shorthand for the responsibilities and achievements implied. Thanks for sharing your org's criteria, it's nice to hear about places that base evaluations on how happy both peers and stakeholders are.

BurningFrog 7y ago

So maybe there are still interns, they just have a fancier title now?

closeparen 7y ago

The meaning of a job title is encoded in your company's performance review and promotion system criteria. All other beliefs about what a title "should" be are just noise. For us, "senior" means "promoted twice" i.e. by first building a successful small system and then by building a successful medium system, with the first having not imploded yet, and your peers and stakeholders generally happy.

gambiting 7y ago
Also, at some companies getting promoted is the only way to higher pay, and you have to promote people so they don't leave due to financial factors. It can be the only way around brick walls set up by HR("no, we can't give this guy a $5k raise, but we can promote him to senior and give him a $5k raise" - logic)
- andreareina 7y ago
  Yeah that's a good point.
andreareina 7y ago
I would agree if it weren't for the baggage that gets attached to the "senior" and "junior" titles. I'll admit to having my own -- otherwise I wouldn't be here arguing about it, haha. Mostly I feel that "senior" is more likely to trigger overconfidence and "tin god" personas; conversely "junior" is a classification I feel people tend to be too much in a hurry to shed. These are obviously traits of the people exhibiting the behavior, and not the fault of the terms themselves, however it is not inappropriate to take human nature into account. Accordingly I am wary when the title is tossed around lightly. In general I do agree that titles are mostly arbitrary and useful just as an org-specific shorthand for the responsibilities and achievements implied. Thanks for sharing your org's criteria, it's nice to hear about places that base evaluations on how happy both peers and stakeholders are.