Well, the article is talking about there being multiple, separate ladders for IC development, which I wouldn't call typical. I have seen "depth or breadth" as m

Well, the article is talking about there being multiple, separate ladders for IC development, which I wouldn't call typical. I have seen "depth or breadth" as mentioned as both potentially valid approaches at some companies, but not always. Breadth/"cross team" impact is usually prioritized. But I agree the tweet is pretty accurate for a small (<20 person) engineering org[0]. I don't think this article really comes into play until 20+ (maybe 50+?) employees. [0] It's also accurate within, say, a single well-isolated smaller team in a bigger org, but then the scope/risk/responsibility is often smaller unless you start adding the typical "across multiple teams" thing to senior/staff/etc.