7 ms·

At my company todays staff engs do what yesterdays senior engs did. It’s a game managers play to retain good talent and give them better salaries. On one team I

At my company todays staff engs do what yesterdays senior engs did. It’s a game managers play to retain good talent and give them better salaries. On one team I know of almost half the team are now Staff. Things change when you get closer to Principal (two levels higher) but at the staff level, despite what might be on paper, they’re just senior engs that negotiate well (I’m speaking as someone on that track, so am as guilty as the next)

lumost 5y ago
HR is of the universally mistaken belief that a 2% raise is all anyone should get regardless of market conditions. The only way for managers to retain talent is then to promote people and dilute whatever title structure your org has.
- analog31 5y ago
  During my brief stint as a manger, I quickly learned that the money for promotions comes out of a different "pot," and that the most highly respected managers were not timid about dipping into that pot. All of the engineers at the highest level at the time, worked for one manager. That understanding changed how I thought about my own career development after I moved back to an IC role.
  - nine_zeros 5y ago
    Can you summarize the various "pots" and what makes the best sense for ICs?
    - ragona 5y ago
      Usually you have a pool of money to split between your reports, playing with say a 2-6% raise for them. If you have an underpaid report you try to favor them, that kind of thing. If you get someone promoted, they get bumped into a new salary band, and thus get a larger raise — and this is outside the above pool.
    - hiptobecubic 5y ago
      Pay allocation isn't rational from the ICs point of view. For handwavy business reasons that sound stupid and no one cares about, you have things like separate budgets for "extra money spent due to promotion" vs "extra money spent due to retention raises" so if you want to retain someone and can't get sufficient money from the retention pot, you are forced to dip into the promotion pot. From an ICs perspective, I think the takeaway is that getting promoted is almost never the wrong move and should be done as soon and as aggressively as possible, otherwise you're probably leaving money on the table. Even in the rare event that you manage to get promoted beyond your level of competence and are now struggling to avoid being fired for performance, you just move to another company with your shiny new title and enjoy a higher total comp there than you would have gotten without promotion anyway. It's pretty hard to go wrong.
    - analog31 5y ago
      In a nutshell, there's one budget for annual salary increases, and another budget for pay increases that result from promotions and competitive counter-offers. These budgets may be controlled by different people. Companies that have a lot of money, tend to manage that money by dividing it up into different "pots" that are controlled by individual managers. This is just a straightforward way of managing a business, but what's not obvious at first glance is that moving money from one pot to another is hard. If a higher power has decided that the merit increase budget is 2%/y, that could be hard for an individual manager to budge. On the other hand, if you promote someone, you get the full 2% of your new budget in the next annual cycle, so your salary budget has increased by more than 2% for that year. Another thing is that if you bump a junior up to senior, and that person leaves, nobody will bat an eye at replacing them with another senior. What I did as an IC was that I articulated my interests to my boss in fairly plain terms. I asked: What's the process for moving up a level? What do I need to do? What goals can we put on my performance review? A lot of people are timid about this, especially as the answer might be No. One of my friends was told by his boss: "You are topped out at your level." Ouch. What I can't tell anybody is what risk they're taking by adopting any particular approach. I don't think I engaged in any skullduggery or politics. I am in fact enthusiastic about the business, and committed to improving my own knowledge and work. Something I've told my bosses, which is completely sincere, is that I have a lot of mental flexibility, and am happy to be guided by what they think is the best for their department and the business. It might be that my experience as a manager gave me some cred, since it was clear that I understood the process from both sides of the table.
      - khuey 5y ago
        > One of my friends was told by his boss: "You are topped out at your level." Ouch. It might be hard to hear but this is a very good answer from the boss. Your friend was told to start looking for a new job if they want to move up rather than waste their time grinding away at their current job. Much better than being sold false hope.
        analog31 5y ago
        Indeed, my friend talked to his financial advisor, bought a sailboat, and went down to a 4 day week. Also, org charts get rearranged once in a while, so his new boss may have had a different idea.
  - lumost 5y ago
    Curiously, when I look at new companies I always check for manager tenure. My experience is that new managers often don't understand these organizational quirks and have a difficult time navigating the internal politics and processes.
    - analog31 5y ago
      In my own case, I simply realized that I could be an OK manager, but was never going to be a great manager. And an interesting IC position came along within the same work site. I was actually promoted out of management.
    - no_wizard 5y ago
      It can also go the other way. I found at established companies new projects often had new managers (not sure why) and also got a lot of the positive focus in the org, and had more resources as a result, which lead to better retention and raises and more headroom if there were issues like missing deadlines. It really depends on the company though
- yehNonsense0 5y ago
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
  HR doesn't make that decision, the upper management does.
  - lumost 5y ago
    not really, the basic mechanics for most companies are 1) The CEO was consulted on a particular comp plan for the new year with budgets for promotions/new hires/retention etc. 2) The CEO was almost certainly given a "generic" plan that the investors of the company + whatever data the HR team has indicates is warranted. 3) The CEO has to decide between going to bat for the employees with the investors (his boss), pushing back on HR with no data, or just accepting it. Unsurprisingly the CEO always takes option 3 - everyone is breathing their own exhaust on what a good raise for the year is and the investors will often present a generic comp plan. You'll usually hear things like "we pay the median" or similar to justify this, but the root cause is always the same, bad data driving bad decisions. Also note that generally these comp plans are made regardless of role. Engineering being more cyclical tends to have rapidly increasing comp on the up-cycle and struggles to match this model. On the flip side we all may be great full that HR doesn't mark comp to market.
    - nojito 5y ago
      The CEO has literally no say in creating Capital Allocations. That's what the CFO is there for.
      - lumost 5y ago
        This will vary from company to company - In some companies the CFO was selected by the board to keep finances in order as the CEO is not trusted, in others the CEO will defer this to the CFO by choice or through collaboration, and some CFO's will probably do not much more than do what the CEO tells them to.
        nojito 5y ago
        Absolute nonsense. CEOs are facilitators. Maybe this is a case of startup culture seeping in but there is always a firewall between the CEO and the rest of the c suite.
karmakaze 5y ago
Because of the interchangeability of titles for the same work, I find it's better to get hired as a sr. dev. Then prove that you can actually do the same work as sr. staff engs then get fast-track promoted twice with accompanying increases that are easy to justify once you have a track record at the new company. If I find that I can't contribute good ideas because of title, then I'm not at the right company and should move on.
msoad 5y ago
Where I work almost all capable engineers are Staff Engineers. Based on the rubrics provided to make sense of our responsibilities we need to “initiate work that has org-wide impact”, “influence the company’s technological direction” and drive large scale multi-team projects. Looking at my change lists from last year, I made a bunch of new models in our backend and wrote a few pages in React. Added monitoring, alerting and shipped the product pages. You know, your typical “software engineering” work. What’s amazing is that I keep getting “exceeds expectations” ratings for this work because I ship things PMs want. The hard part is self review time where I put my fantasy novel author hat on and spit out some bullshit on how my React components changed the technological direction of the company. Maybe this skill is what makes me a Staff Engineer!
- elnygren 5y ago
  Out of curiosity, where do these ratings come from? From the PMs? Or do you have EMs who just listen to the PMs in these things?
  - msoad 5y ago
    “The committee”. Directors sit on it. I have lots of good relationships with most directors in my org.
- twblalock 5y ago
  > You know, your typical “software engineering” work. “Typical” work, done well and on time with good production reliability, is often hard to get. Perhaps it’s a sign of your seniority that you think that’s all typical. I’ve seen people release buggy code with no tests, metrics, or monitoring and think they were finished with it. That gets fixed when the more senior engineers step in and demand higher standards. It’s sad that the baseline for quality in the software industry is so low, but that’s how it is.
  - H8crilA 5y ago
    The thing is that: Junior -> needs monitoring ~weekly Senior -> does eng work reliably and on time, can lead a junior or maybe a few but doesn't have to Staff -> leads Seniors (plus maybe some juniors directly) Grandparent is mentioning that in their org there are plenty Staffs that do not lead anyone.
Yoric 5y ago
In my previous job, I progressively realized that: - I had been acting two levels above my paygrade for several years; - everybody assumed that I was two levels above my paygrade; - considerable turnover in managers (on average, without changing team often, I changed manager about 1.2 times per year) meant that nobody realized that there was a problem; - attempting to actually get to the next paygrade brought a reaction of "well, if he's not at the next paygrade, there must be a reason, right?" Clearly, the ladder was broken. That's one of the many reasons for which I eventually left that job.
- gonzo41 5y ago
  I has this happen to me. My org had a set of promotion opportunities that went to a cohort of engineers who'd also been gamed into working above level but for a longer time. All my feedback was along the lines of "you're great, but next time" When I, and about 15 others left over the same two week period as the results of those promotions were made public it was a BIG shock to the biz. Sadly I hear they are just blaming culture at the lower levels rather than the HR team who do this.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    If your HR team is deciding engineering promotions, stop looking for the problem; you found it. HR is welcome to attend/audit the process, give statistical analysis, check for biases, advise on how to handle underperforming employees, give compensation band advice, and execute the promotion decisions the technology group decides. But if they’re the ones deciding, you need to change your company (or change companies).
    - gonzo41 5y ago
      We'll that's already happened for me. But the issue at core was that HR controlled the pace of promotions etc. But it didn't likewise keep control over the work that would be pushed onto people.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
tootie 5y ago
I'm not sure I've ever seen org, no matter how well-intentioned, that titles weren't done primarily for retention. They are valuable but don't cost money.
- doktorhladnjak 5y ago
  This is so true. Companies wouldn’t offer promotions if their competitors didn’t do it too. It’s a structured way to pay people more over time as they add more value to your business rather than having them leave for the competition.

lumost 5y ago

HR is of the universally mistaken belief that a 2% raise is all anyone should get regardless of market conditions. The only way for managers to retain talent is then to promote people and dilute whatever title structure your org has.

analog31 5y ago
During my brief stint as a manger, I quickly learned that the money for promotions comes out of a different "pot," and that the most highly respected managers were not timid about dipping into that pot. All of the engineers at the highest level at the time, worked for one manager. That understanding changed how I thought about my own career development after I moved back to an IC role.
- nine_zeros 5y ago
  Can you summarize the various "pots" and what makes the best sense for ICs?
  - ragona 5y ago
    Usually you have a pool of money to split between your reports, playing with say a 2-6% raise for them. If you have an underpaid report you try to favor them, that kind of thing. If you get someone promoted, they get bumped into a new salary band, and thus get a larger raise — and this is outside the above pool.
  - hiptobecubic 5y ago
    Pay allocation isn't rational from the ICs point of view. For handwavy business reasons that sound stupid and no one cares about, you have things like separate budgets for "extra money spent due to promotion" vs "extra money spent due to retention raises" so if you want to retain someone and can't get sufficient money from the retention pot, you are forced to dip into the promotion pot. From an ICs perspective, I think the takeaway is that getting promoted is almost never the wrong move and should be done as soon and as aggressively as possible, otherwise you're probably leaving money on the table. Even in the rare event that you manage to get promoted beyond your level of competence and are now struggling to avoid being fired for performance, you just move to another company with your shiny new title and enjoy a higher total comp there than you would have gotten without promotion anyway. It's pretty hard to go wrong.
  - analog31 5y ago
    In a nutshell, there's one budget for annual salary increases, and another budget for pay increases that result from promotions and competitive counter-offers. These budgets may be controlled by different people. Companies that have a lot of money, tend to manage that money by dividing it up into different "pots" that are controlled by individual managers. This is just a straightforward way of managing a business, but what's not obvious at first glance is that moving money from one pot to another is hard. If a higher power has decided that the merit increase budget is 2%/y, that could be hard for an individual manager to budge. On the other hand, if you promote someone, you get the full 2% of your new budget in the next annual cycle, so your salary budget has increased by more than 2% for that year. Another thing is that if you bump a junior up to senior, and that person leaves, nobody will bat an eye at replacing them with another senior. What I did as an IC was that I articulated my interests to my boss in fairly plain terms. I asked: What's the process for moving up a level? What do I need to do? What goals can we put on my performance review? A lot of people are timid about this, especially as the answer might be No. One of my friends was told by his boss: "You are topped out at your level." Ouch. What I can't tell anybody is what risk they're taking by adopting any particular approach. I don't think I engaged in any skullduggery or politics. I am in fact enthusiastic about the business, and committed to improving my own knowledge and work. Something I've told my bosses, which is completely sincere, is that I have a lot of mental flexibility, and am happy to be guided by what they think is the best for their department and the business. It might be that my experience as a manager gave me some cred, since it was clear that I understood the process from both sides of the table.
    - khuey 5y ago
      > One of my friends was told by his boss: "You are topped out at your level." Ouch. It might be hard to hear but this is a very good answer from the boss. Your friend was told to start looking for a new job if they want to move up rather than waste their time grinding away at their current job. Much better than being sold false hope.
      - analog31 5y ago
        Indeed, my friend talked to his financial advisor, bought a sailboat, and went down to a 4 day week. Also, org charts get rearranged once in a while, so his new boss may have had a different idea.
- lumost 5y ago
  Curiously, when I look at new companies I always check for manager tenure. My experience is that new managers often don't understand these organizational quirks and have a difficult time navigating the internal politics and processes.
  - analog31 5y ago
    In my own case, I simply realized that I could be an OK manager, but was never going to be a great manager. And an interesting IC position came along within the same work site. I was actually promoted out of management.
  - no_wizard 5y ago
    It can also go the other way. I found at established companies new projects often had new managers (not sure why) and also got a lot of the positive focus in the org, and had more resources as a result, which lead to better retention and raises and more headroom if there were issues like missing deadlines. It really depends on the company though
yehNonsense0 5y ago
isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
HR doesn't make that decision, the upper management does.
- lumost 5y ago
  not really, the basic mechanics for most companies are 1) The CEO was consulted on a particular comp plan for the new year with budgets for promotions/new hires/retention etc. 2) The CEO was almost certainly given a "generic" plan that the investors of the company + whatever data the HR team has indicates is warranted. 3) The CEO has to decide between going to bat for the employees with the investors (his boss), pushing back on HR with no data, or just accepting it. Unsurprisingly the CEO always takes option 3 - everyone is breathing their own exhaust on what a good raise for the year is and the investors will often present a generic comp plan. You'll usually hear things like "we pay the median" or similar to justify this, but the root cause is always the same, bad data driving bad decisions. Also note that generally these comp plans are made regardless of role. Engineering being more cyclical tends to have rapidly increasing comp on the up-cycle and struggles to match this model. On the flip side we all may be great full that HR doesn't mark comp to market.
  - nojito 5y ago
    The CEO has literally no say in creating Capital Allocations. That's what the CFO is there for.
    - lumost 5y ago
      This will vary from company to company - In some companies the CFO was selected by the board to keep finances in order as the CEO is not trusted, in others the CEO will defer this to the CFO by choice or through collaboration, and some CFO's will probably do not much more than do what the CEO tells them to.
      - nojito 5y ago
        Absolute nonsense. CEOs are facilitators. Maybe this is a case of startup culture seeping in but there is always a firewall between the CEO and the rest of the c suite.

karmakaze 5y ago

Because of the interchangeability of titles for the same work, I find it's better to get hired as a sr. dev. Then prove that you can actually do the same work as sr. staff engs then get fast-track promoted twice with accompanying increases that are easy to justify once you have a track record at the new company. If I find that I can't contribute good ideas because of title, then I'm not at the right company and should move on.

msoad 5y ago

Where I work almost all capable engineers are Staff Engineers. Based on the rubrics provided to make sense of our responsibilities we need to “initiate work that has org-wide impact”, “influence the company’s technological direction” and drive large scale multi-team projects. Looking at my change lists from last year, I made a bunch of new models in our backend and wrote a few pages in React. Added monitoring, alerting and shipped the product pages. You know, your typical “software engineering” work. What’s amazing is that I keep getting “exceeds expectations” ratings for this work because I ship things PMs want. The hard part is self review time where I put my fantasy novel author hat on and spit out some bullshit on how my React components changed the technological direction of the company. Maybe this skill is what makes me a Staff Engineer!

elnygren 5y ago
Out of curiosity, where do these ratings come from? From the PMs? Or do you have EMs who just listen to the PMs in these things?
- msoad 5y ago
  “The committee”. Directors sit on it. I have lots of good relationships with most directors in my org.
twblalock 5y ago
> You know, your typical “software engineering” work. “Typical” work, done well and on time with good production reliability, is often hard to get. Perhaps it’s a sign of your seniority that you think that’s all typical. I’ve seen people release buggy code with no tests, metrics, or monitoring and think they were finished with it. That gets fixed when the more senior engineers step in and demand higher standards. It’s sad that the baseline for quality in the software industry is so low, but that’s how it is.
- H8crilA 5y ago
  The thing is that: Junior -> needs monitoring ~weekly Senior -> does eng work reliably and on time, can lead a junior or maybe a few but doesn't have to Staff -> leads Seniors (plus maybe some juniors directly) Grandparent is mentioning that in their org there are plenty Staffs that do not lead anyone.

Yoric 5y ago

In my previous job, I progressively realized that: - I had been acting two levels above my paygrade for several years; - everybody assumed that I was two levels above my paygrade; - considerable turnover in managers (on average, without changing team often, I changed manager about 1.2 times per year) meant that nobody realized that there was a problem; - attempting to actually get to the next paygrade brought a reaction of "well, if he's not at the next paygrade, there must be a reason, right?" Clearly, the ladder was broken. That's one of the many reasons for which I eventually left that job.

gonzo41 5y ago
I has this happen to me. My org had a set of promotion opportunities that went to a cohort of engineers who'd also been gamed into working above level but for a longer time. All my feedback was along the lines of "you're great, but next time" When I, and about 15 others left over the same two week period as the results of those promotions were made public it was a BIG shock to the biz. Sadly I hear they are just blaming culture at the lower levels rather than the HR team who do this.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  If your HR team is deciding engineering promotions, stop looking for the problem; you found it. HR is welcome to attend/audit the process, give statistical analysis, check for biases, advise on how to handle underperforming employees, give compensation band advice, and execute the promotion decisions the technology group decides. But if they’re the ones deciding, you need to change your company (or change companies).
  - gonzo41 5y ago
    We'll that's already happened for me. But the issue at core was that HR controlled the pace of promotions etc. But it didn't likewise keep control over the work that would be pushed onto people.
alisonkisk 5y ago

tootie 5y ago

I'm not sure I've ever seen org, no matter how well-intentioned, that titles weren't done primarily for retention. They are valuable but don't cost money.

doktorhladnjak 5y ago
This is so true. Companies wouldn’t offer promotions if their competitors didn’t do it too. It’s a structured way to pay people more over time as they add more value to your business rather than having them leave for the competition.