4 ms·

Wow. This is such a good comment. I remember when I was a junior engineer and knew more than many of the "senior" engineers at a job a few years back. It didn't

by cellis 6y ago

Wow. This is such a good comment. I remember when I was a junior engineer and knew more than many of the "senior" engineers at a job a few years back. It didn't matter at all, as seniority outranked sensibility. I was thinking about this a bit after reading your comment. Now, I say this as having recently negotiated pretty hard for a "Staff" title, and previously had a "Team Lead" title. I think in certain situations it makes sense to have the title authority to shoot obviously bad engineering problems down, but this has been the exception, rather than the rule, in most of my 12 years of being a software engineer. So your comment makes me wonder: would it make sense to have a system where everyone would simply be called "Engineer", but allow engineers to vote secretly after having worked with another engineer, on various aspects of their colleague's technical expertise. Engineering Managers or perhaps HR would be aware of the engineering votes, but engineers wouldn't, which would remove much of the implicit bias in engineering meetings. Rather, pay grades would be determined by votes, but no one would ever just "Leave it to Yakaaccount, she's the principal engineer". Everyone would have responsibility to be a solid engineer.

whoevercares 6y ago
If members of the team had trusted each other enough to trust the votes that related to pay grade, you’d probably don’t need the votes already
underplank 6y ago
I think its a good idea to remove implicit bias where ever you can. But doing that by making a structure that does exist be invisible is dangerous. That hierarchy does exist. Even if it's not in your face. It's human nature and it's a good thing in some situations. I think the better angle on this is to have an open culture where the discussion can happen and everyone listens and asks the questions without fear, consensus is built and those with power (because there is always someone with power) wield it sparingly. This is much harder to get to, but it's more sustainable.
t- 6y ago
What you describe reminds me of the peer review system in place at a previous company I worked at. The review period was every 6 months. The way it worked was that as an individual you'd rank (and comment on) everyone you had worked with the previous 6 months based on your perception of how much value they added to the company over those previous 6 months. It could be based on some project they delivered, or them simply always answering your questions about something you needed to know to move your own projects forward, or them participating thoughtfully in company wide discussions. Once everyone had submitted their rankings, an algo would figure out everyone's final rank. The various pay level cutoffs would then be decided by eng management. It so happens that at that company everyone's title was simply 'Software Engineer'. There was no ego bs so it was a great place to work. I think how helpful you were to others being part of the review is another reason for that. There was a way to see some people's 'rank' by looking at the org chart if you really wanted to. In general swe and senior swe would be under an eng manager, if someone was directly under a director that told you something, and if someone was directly under a vp that also told you something.
aahortwwy 6y ago
> So your comment makes me wonder: would it make sense to have a system where everyone would simply be called "Engineer", but allow engineers to vote secretly after having worked with another engineer, on various aspects of their colleague's technical expertise. I worked at a place that had a system like this. Started great, but turned toxic after a hiring spree. > Everyone would have responsibility to be a solid engineer. You would think so, but people with other intentions try to find ways to manipulate the system to achieve various strange goals. They're often successful.

by cellis 6y ago

whoevercares 6y ago

If members of the team had trusted each other enough to trust the votes that related to pay grade, you’d probably don’t need the votes already

underplank 6y ago

I think its a good idea to remove implicit bias where ever you can. But doing that by making a structure that does exist be invisible is dangerous. That hierarchy does exist. Even if it's not in your face. It's human nature and it's a good thing in some situations. I think the better angle on this is to have an open culture where the discussion can happen and everyone listens and asks the questions without fear, consensus is built and those with power (because there is always someone with power) wield it sparingly. This is much harder to get to, but it's more sustainable.

t- 6y ago

What you describe reminds me of the peer review system in place at a previous company I worked at. The review period was every 6 months. The way it worked was that as an individual you'd rank (and comment on) everyone you had worked with the previous 6 months based on your perception of how much value they added to the company over those previous 6 months. It could be based on some project they delivered, or them simply always answering your questions about something you needed to know to move your own projects forward, or them participating thoughtfully in company wide discussions. Once everyone had submitted their rankings, an algo would figure out everyone's final rank. The various pay level cutoffs would then be decided by eng management. It so happens that at that company everyone's title was simply 'Software Engineer'. There was no ego bs so it was a great place to work. I think how helpful you were to others being part of the review is another reason for that. There was a way to see some people's 'rank' by looking at the org chart if you really wanted to. In general swe and senior swe would be under an eng manager, if someone was directly under a director that told you something, and if someone was directly under a vp that also told you something.

aahortwwy 6y ago

> So your comment makes me wonder: would it make sense to have a system where everyone would simply be called "Engineer", but allow engineers to vote secretly after having worked with another engineer, on various aspects of their colleague's technical expertise. I worked at a place that had a system like this. Started great, but turned toxic after a hiring spree. > Everyone would have responsibility to be a solid engineer. You would think so, but people with other intentions try to find ways to manipulate the system to achieve various strange goals. They're often successful.