6 ms·

I'm can't be the only one exhausted from all these pointless bloggers trying to point to how their promotion to hierarchical title N is justified because it's a

I'm can't be the only one exhausted from all these pointless bloggers trying to point to how their promotion to hierarchical title N is justified because it's arbitrarily different than N - 1 at their org. Let's just acknowledge these things don't actually map across different organizations and therefore have no meaning. Hierarchical titles are for engineers that hide their mediocrity behind HR appointed titles.

pm90 4y ago
> Hierarchical titles are for engineers that hide their mediocrity behind HR appointed titles. Disagree. The motivation is more around the financial benefits that come from it. Which, honestly, I wouldn’t blame anyone for wanting, considering the CoL in most major US metros. I do think its worth attempting to create a technical career path for engineers though. The current iteration may not be perfect, but its an improvement over the previous thing, which was that you had to move into managerial positions to make “career progress”. In fact one of the criticisms I have of the upper levels of this rat race is that it devolves into more managerial work anyways, reducing the amount of time engineers spend in the trenches (so to speak) contributing to the decline of their skills.
dasil003 4y ago
Like a lot of things in life, judgement is required. To dismiss levels as "having no meaning" is to misunderstand their purpose and limitations. Someone being promoted to Staff, Senior Staff, Principal, Distinguished at top tech companies says a lot. On the other hand, getting hired into Staff means less. In all cases though, the specifics depend on a lot of (usually) nameless, faceless individuals who also are subject to their own biases. I'll tell you this though, having interviewed hundreds and hired dozens over the last 25 years: someone unilaterally declaring levels to be bullshit for the mediocre is a pretty strong negative signal about their ability to succeed in a large organization outside of specialist positions in research or other isolated roles that don't require cross-team or cross-functional influence.

pm90 4y ago

> Hierarchical titles are for engineers that hide their mediocrity behind HR appointed titles. Disagree. The motivation is more around the financial benefits that come from it. Which, honestly, I wouldn’t blame anyone for wanting, considering the CoL in most major US metros. I do think its worth attempting to create a technical career path for engineers though. The current iteration may not be perfect, but its an improvement over the previous thing, which was that you had to move into managerial positions to make “career progress”. In fact one of the criticisms I have of the upper levels of this rat race is that it devolves into more managerial work anyways, reducing the amount of time engineers spend in the trenches (so to speak) contributing to the decline of their skills.

dasil003 4y ago

Like a lot of things in life, judgement is required. To dismiss levels as "having no meaning" is to misunderstand their purpose and limitations. Someone being promoted to Staff, Senior Staff, Principal, Distinguished at top tech companies says a lot. On the other hand, getting hired into Staff means less. In all cases though, the specifics depend on a lot of (usually) nameless, faceless individuals who also are subject to their own biases. I'll tell you this though, having interviewed hundreds and hired dozens over the last 25 years: someone unilaterally declaring levels to be bullshit for the mediocre is a pretty strong negative signal about their ability to succeed in a large organization outside of specialist positions in research or other isolated roles that don't require cross-team or cross-functional influence.