6 ms·

The big tech companies (ie. FANG) all have huge demand for principal+ engineers and know how to scope and support them properly. The size means they have lots

The big tech companies (ie. FANG) all have huge demand for principal+ engineers and know how to scope and support them properly. The size means they have lots of them which reduces the snowflake nature of the role and makes career development, salary support, etc… more standardized. Since they are large, there can be some variance, but overall they are a good option if you are interested. I don’t know where in EU you are, but most of FANG has roles in EU and some even do remote as well. Smaller companies tend to want principal engineers in theory, but as you are finding they can often struggle with how to utilize them properly. Often you see them playing a Chief Architect role or something similar which is more hybrid with PM than pure tech. So getting PM skills could help set you up for this direction as well. Finally, you have said you did management for a bit before, so you should know if this is an interesting path or not. This is a very different role, so I would recommend you do this only if you have the passion and desire to do this full time. Most principal engineers I know have done management for a bit and gained a lot of skills related to it, but ultimately wasn’t what they wanted to do.

notacoward 5y ago
The problem at the big (especially FAANG) companies is that to be effective you need to really buy in to the company's tech stack and development ethos. People who were promoted to those roles naturally do; you probably don't. In fact, if you have a lot of experience elsewhere you're likely to have opinions that conflict with the company zeitgeist, and that leads to conflict with its champions. Similarly, effective principal/staff/+ work requires a lot of strong connections to people in many teams, which again tends to favor internal promotions. This is not competition for its own sake. It means that when you're compared to your home-grown peers every review cycle it will be difficult for you to keep up let alone stand out (even for a while after the typical one-year grace period which isn't long enough at this level). This is discouraging, and in some cases can leave you in a permanent bind w.r.t. team trust or possibility of an internal transfer. Many thrive despite all this, but many also end up seeing it as lost time and opportunity. Quite a few end up going back to where they were, while others opt for a smaller company. P.S. I'd argue that, for all their advantages within the company, those internal promotions are usually over promotions. People's attachment to that tech stack and development ethos, and lack of experience with any other, means there's an even sharper drop in their value going elsewhere than for outsiders coming in.
- bradleyjg 5y ago
  To put a more positive spin on what you are saying, very senior ICs carry the company’s technical culture. They have influence in shaping it, but they aren’t hired or promoted to buck it. If you want that kind of influence you need to climb the EM ladder up towards VP Engineering or equivalent. However, in that case you don’t get to spend 30%, or any, time programming. On the third hand you can go to a start up and wear a ton of hats, but you probably won’t get high cash comp. Life is always about trade offs.
  - notacoward 5y ago
    Agreed. There's a lot of opportunity there if people are willing to adapt to local norms, even if that means setting aside past (often hard-won) lessons. Some can. Some can't. Most don't really know if they can or not until they try. That's all fine, but I do take issue with this. > you need to climb the EM ladder No. Many of these companies take pride in being "engineer first" but that's a false claim if engineers are discouraged from challenging the local orthodoxy too much and only high-level execs may do so. It's too easy for territoriality and NIH to set in, or for real progress to be replaced with mere churn. Didn't we learn these lessons with older tech giants like IBM or AT&T or DEC? They had the same pattern of people replacing one internal system with an almost identical one, because reaping credit and promotions that way was easier than fighting for true change. They had the same pattern of people who had learned those habits too well becoming DEs or fellows and using the same "guardians of the culture" excuse to enforce conformity for its own sake. And look where it got them. Obviously those who wish to challenge the status quo need to balance that with productive work within the existing paradigm, and strong claims require strong evidence (which a VPE is unlikely to have BTW), but that's exactly why there should not be additional barriers. I was not the first or only person at Facebook to observe that the whole thing would come crashing down if not for an ever-changing cast of engineers determined to do the right thing despite the effect they knew it would have on their PSCs. In a true engineer-first culture challenges to the status quo would be encouraged and engaged, but in my experience that wasn't always the case. Corporate ossification wasn't only a problem for prior generations.
    - 5y ago
Fiahil 5y ago
Other big non-FANG companies also need Staff/Principal Engineers. You can find them in AI consulting companies, banks, insurance, and pretty much everywhere when you know what to look for. This includes most European cities if you have a EU passport.

notacoward 5y ago

The problem at the big (especially FAANG) companies is that to be effective you need to really buy in to the company's tech stack and development ethos. People who were promoted to those roles naturally do; you probably don't. In fact, if you have a lot of experience elsewhere you're likely to have opinions that conflict with the company zeitgeist, and that leads to conflict with its champions. Similarly, effective principal/staff/+ work requires a lot of strong connections to people in many teams, which again tends to favor internal promotions. This is not competition for its own sake. It means that when you're compared to your home-grown peers every review cycle it will be difficult for you to keep up let alone stand out (even for a while after the typical one-year grace period which isn't long enough at this level). This is discouraging, and in some cases can leave you in a permanent bind w.r.t. team trust or possibility of an internal transfer. Many thrive despite all this, but many also end up seeing it as lost time and opportunity. Quite a few end up going back to where they were, while others opt for a smaller company. P.S. I'd argue that, for all their advantages within the company, those internal promotions are usually over promotions. People's attachment to that tech stack and development ethos, and lack of experience with any other, means there's an even sharper drop in their value going elsewhere than for outsiders coming in.

bradleyjg 5y ago
To put a more positive spin on what you are saying, very senior ICs carry the company’s technical culture. They have influence in shaping it, but they aren’t hired or promoted to buck it. If you want that kind of influence you need to climb the EM ladder up towards VP Engineering or equivalent. However, in that case you don’t get to spend 30%, or any, time programming. On the third hand you can go to a start up and wear a ton of hats, but you probably won’t get high cash comp. Life is always about trade offs.
- notacoward 5y ago
  Agreed. There's a lot of opportunity there if people are willing to adapt to local norms, even if that means setting aside past (often hard-won) lessons. Some can. Some can't. Most don't really know if they can or not until they try. That's all fine, but I do take issue with this. > you need to climb the EM ladder No. Many of these companies take pride in being "engineer first" but that's a false claim if engineers are discouraged from challenging the local orthodoxy too much and only high-level execs may do so. It's too easy for territoriality and NIH to set in, or for real progress to be replaced with mere churn. Didn't we learn these lessons with older tech giants like IBM or AT&T or DEC? They had the same pattern of people replacing one internal system with an almost identical one, because reaping credit and promotions that way was easier than fighting for true change. They had the same pattern of people who had learned those habits too well becoming DEs or fellows and using the same "guardians of the culture" excuse to enforce conformity for its own sake. And look where it got them. Obviously those who wish to challenge the status quo need to balance that with productive work within the existing paradigm, and strong claims require strong evidence (which a VPE is unlikely to have BTW), but that's exactly why there should not be additional barriers. I was not the first or only person at Facebook to observe that the whole thing would come crashing down if not for an ever-changing cast of engineers determined to do the right thing despite the effect they knew it would have on their PSCs. In a true engineer-first culture challenges to the status quo would be encouraged and engaged, but in my experience that wasn't always the case. Corporate ossification wasn't only a problem for prior generations.
  - 5y ago

Fiahil 5y ago

Other big non-FANG companies also need Staff/Principal Engineers. You can find them in AI consulting companies, banks, insurance, and pretty much everywhere when you know what to look for. This includes most European cities if you have a EU passport.