4 ms·

I wish companies would be run in a way that removes insane leveling completely. In my current company there are 7 or 8 levels (depending how you look at it) fo

by mradek 4y ago

I wish companies would be run in a way that removes insane leveling completely. In my current company there are 7 or 8 levels (depending how you look at it) for ICs. Why? IME it has led to so much “talk” and bloat, and useless meetings led by people trying to prove something who go on and on about things that make no sense. No execution, only flattery and BS. IMO, the only levels you need should be Software Engineer, Senior Software Engineer, and Software Architect. The architects should be rare, and there should be a healthy mix of seniors and juniors focused on building and supporting products internal and customer facing. Why do we have several layers of managers? Out of a dozen managers only two have been good. They’re also the first ones fired. It just seems stupid, even if it’s purposefully done that way (that’s even dumber to consider). Have lean teams with a lead, and a manager who manages several teams, and a director for each product offering who reports to a CTO or something. VP, SVP, EVP. Why? I’m on a team where people waste so much time and yet I see those same people get promoted, while I’m told I’m disengaged because I don’t turn on my camera in bullshit meetings (to plan future meetings or ramble). On the other hand, my team consistently delivers on time or sooner, while those teams take forever. It’s sad, really.

smugma 4y ago
The IC leveling at Apple is similar to what you have described. ICT 3/4/5 roughly maps to what you have. The problem with this is that while it's relatively easy to go from a 3 to a 4 after a few years, it's a huge jump from 4 to 5, and then after that you've basically peaked for life. If you just care about building great things, it can work, but for many people, feeling like there's growth and not stagnation is a problem. It also creates a problem for managers having to temper those expectations. Limiting IC layers doesn't remove all the other politics.
- gajjanag 4y ago
  Not really true anymore unfortunately, and the system is converging with other large organizations. For example, to keep compensation in line with market and reduce attrition, there were definitely more people who got promoted to ICT5 last year and the designation has thus been diluted. Furthermore, candidates coming in from other large companies expect the title/leveling prestige in many cases, and ICT5 is a tough sell while trying to hire a Google L7/8. So Apple does have a fair number of ICT6 from that. I also think limiting IC layers and keeping the above politics minimal can work - Netflix did that for a long time and was very successful as a company with their approach. Most IC at Netflix were simply titled "senior software engineer", with pay being a wide band dependent on market value. They no longer do that for some reasons, and have adopted the standard large level hierarchy.
  - smugma 4y ago
    Fair number of ICT6… would you say more than 250 out of what, 25K engineers?
fardo 4y ago
> In my current company there are 7 or 8 levels (depending how you look at it) for ICs. Why? Promotions tend to represent some combination of four things to most companies: • more expected impact and workload, • more status, • more money, and • more expected industry experience and seniority The three level system you propose might work if the company using it is in fact actually flatter in its internal hierarchy on those traits - but if it’s not, from the perspectives of the workers, all you’ve done is intentionally obscured the mechanics of the actual hierarchy you’re using in a way that even further obscures pay disparities, denies workers who are motivated by externally visible status a route to progression, equates high performing “just below architect” and “barely above software engineer” workloads in a way likely to incentivize many seniors to coast, and surrenders an easy tool for gauging performance by measuring how successfully someone is progressing at the company and in the field based on their level vs. years of experience.
starik36 4y ago
> The architects should be rare This reminded me of my time at iHeartMedia. The company had an entire department of non-coding architects. They produced so many Visio diagrams that the company had to purchase a product that indexed these documents so that they could be searched. The amount of busywork that was produced still takes my breath away.
aljfds3 4y ago
At Palantir, there are no levels at all, everyone is just a simple software engineer. It's their relevant experience that gives an engineer leverage on a project.
- shanusmagnus 4y ago
  I worked at a place like that before. A lot of people were grumpy that they were not progressing. Some of them were probably right; some were probably wrong. But it was clear to me that having a concrete thing to aim for (a new title) mattered. A lot. I take it that wasn't the case at Palantir. Since I'm convinced that all humans are status-seeking, I'm curious how Palantir satisfied that urge, if not w/ title differentiation.
  - solardev 4y ago
    Is it bad to discourage status-seeking behavior, such that the people are just that way... look elsewhere?
    - zwaps 4y ago
      Can you, as a business, afford it?
      - solardev 4y ago
        Probably? Is it really the ladder climbers or the everyday folks doing the grunt work?
    - shanusmagnus 4y ago
      I don't believe in good or bad wrt stuff like this. You're welcome to try to discourage it, but success would depend crucially on how many people really are not "that way." I don't think I'd take that bet, personally, but it's possible I've lived in a strange sub-world and have met unusual people.
- tinglymintyfrsh 4y ago
dilyevsky 4y ago
> In my current company there are 7 or 8 levels (depending how you look at it) for ICs. Why? Probably same reason hn has points count beyond 500
m463 4y ago
I remember finding out some companies had SO many VPs. how can you have that many VPs? isn't it like making everyone a senior engineer?
- FabHK 4y ago
  In investment banking, that's just a mid-level title. The usual progression is Analyst, Associate, VP, Director, Managing Director. Not everyone becomes MD, but you definitely become VP by sticking around for a few years.
- kccqzy 4y ago
  At my current job between the CEO and me the reporting chain had one SVP and three VPs.
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    Vice President right? Weird naming considering it makes it sound like there should be 1 and they are in position #2 of all people.
brhsagain 4y ago
I agree with you that promo culture is pretty much the root of modern big company rot, but under your system, how do you propose an industrious, ambitious IC move up, whatever that means? Even if you think the status is fake and dumb (and I would agree), how do you make more money as an IC?
- jordanbeiber 4y ago
  Exactly - what does it mean? You work on stimulating things and get paid what you accept. You’ll have a yearly review where you have your say, and pay can be increased if employer think it’s worth it. Titles are problematic in teams working to produce good stuff! We should compare ourselves to athletes more than the MBA powerpoint version of a company. I hear Tom Brady is a legend - is he an S10 quarterback? Senior quarterback? Or just a quarterback with high a salary based on performance? I believe levels are instruments for managers not employees.
  - nostrebored 4y ago
    Everyone who cares about Brady is watching him and knows how he is performing. This is not true of engineers.
    - jordanbeiber 4y ago
      This is why I’m stating it’s a management tool. Poor management requires boxes. Better management actually care and help employees perform and improve. In the end it’s about culture.
  - brhsagain 4y ago
    I agree with you that a level system creates bad incentives for everyone. But what they do provide is a rubric for the ambitious 23 year old who wants to climb to the top of whatever group he’s in. If you get rid of levels, what’s the new hierarchy for him to climb? If you don’t specify a hierarchy, one is going to form anyway, and then it’s even more out of your control. If you’re going to say the hierarchy should be based on people doing real work, well I agree, but that is pretty much impossible to measure in groups beyond a certain size. This groups beyond a certain size problem is the root of the problem, not levels, which are just a stopgap measure to slow the brakes on the deterioration and degeneracy that you find in any gigantic group of people.

by mradek 4y ago

smugma 4y ago

The IC leveling at Apple is similar to what you have described. ICT 3/4/5 roughly maps to what you have. The problem with this is that while it's relatively easy to go from a 3 to a 4 after a few years, it's a huge jump from 4 to 5, and then after that you've basically peaked for life. If you just care about building great things, it can work, but for many people, feeling like there's growth and not stagnation is a problem. It also creates a problem for managers having to temper those expectations. Limiting IC layers doesn't remove all the other politics.

gajjanag 4y ago
Not really true anymore unfortunately, and the system is converging with other large organizations. For example, to keep compensation in line with market and reduce attrition, there were definitely more people who got promoted to ICT5 last year and the designation has thus been diluted. Furthermore, candidates coming in from other large companies expect the title/leveling prestige in many cases, and ICT5 is a tough sell while trying to hire a Google L7/8. So Apple does have a fair number of ICT6 from that. I also think limiting IC layers and keeping the above politics minimal can work - Netflix did that for a long time and was very successful as a company with their approach. Most IC at Netflix were simply titled "senior software engineer", with pay being a wide band dependent on market value. They no longer do that for some reasons, and have adopted the standard large level hierarchy.
- smugma 4y ago
  Fair number of ICT6… would you say more than 250 out of what, 25K engineers?

fardo 4y ago

> In my current company there are 7 or 8 levels (depending how you look at it) for ICs. Why? Promotions tend to represent some combination of four things to most companies: • more expected impact and workload, • more status, • more money, and • more expected industry experience and seniority The three level system you propose might work if the company using it is in fact actually flatter in its internal hierarchy on those traits - but if it’s not, from the perspectives of the workers, all you’ve done is intentionally obscured the mechanics of the actual hierarchy you’re using in a way that even further obscures pay disparities, denies workers who are motivated by externally visible status a route to progression, equates high performing “just below architect” and “barely above software engineer” workloads in a way likely to incentivize many seniors to coast, and surrenders an easy tool for gauging performance by measuring how successfully someone is progressing at the company and in the field based on their level vs. years of experience.

starik36 4y ago

> The architects should be rare This reminded me of my time at iHeartMedia. The company had an entire department of non-coding architects. They produced so many Visio diagrams that the company had to purchase a product that indexed these documents so that they could be searched. The amount of busywork that was produced still takes my breath away.

aljfds3 4y ago

At Palantir, there are no levels at all, everyone is just a simple software engineer. It's their relevant experience that gives an engineer leverage on a project.

shanusmagnus 4y ago
I worked at a place like that before. A lot of people were grumpy that they were not progressing. Some of them were probably right; some were probably wrong. But it was clear to me that having a concrete thing to aim for (a new title) mattered. A lot. I take it that wasn't the case at Palantir. Since I'm convinced that all humans are status-seeking, I'm curious how Palantir satisfied that urge, if not w/ title differentiation.
- solardev 4y ago
  Is it bad to discourage status-seeking behavior, such that the people are just that way... look elsewhere?
  - zwaps 4y ago
    Can you, as a business, afford it?
    - solardev 4y ago
      Probably? Is it really the ladder climbers or the everyday folks doing the grunt work?
  - shanusmagnus 4y ago
    I don't believe in good or bad wrt stuff like this. You're welcome to try to discourage it, but success would depend crucially on how many people really are not "that way." I don't think I'd take that bet, personally, but it's possible I've lived in a strange sub-world and have met unusual people.
tinglymintyfrsh 4y ago

dilyevsky 4y ago

> In my current company there are 7 or 8 levels (depending how you look at it) for ICs. Why? Probably same reason hn has points count beyond 500

m463 4y ago

I remember finding out some companies had SO many VPs. how can you have that many VPs? isn't it like making everyone a senior engineer?

FabHK 4y ago
In investment banking, that's just a mid-level title. The usual progression is Analyst, Associate, VP, Director, Managing Director. Not everyone becomes MD, but you definitely become VP by sticking around for a few years.
kccqzy 4y ago
At my current job between the CEO and me the reporting chain had one SVP and three VPs.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  Vice President right? Weird naming considering it makes it sound like there should be 1 and they are in position #2 of all people.

brhsagain 4y ago

I agree with you that promo culture is pretty much the root of modern big company rot, but under your system, how do you propose an industrious, ambitious IC move up, whatever that means? Even if you think the status is fake and dumb (and I would agree), how do you make more money as an IC?

jordanbeiber 4y ago
Exactly - what does it mean? You work on stimulating things and get paid what you accept. You’ll have a yearly review where you have your say, and pay can be increased if employer think it’s worth it. Titles are problematic in teams working to produce good stuff! We should compare ourselves to athletes more than the MBA powerpoint version of a company. I hear Tom Brady is a legend - is he an S10 quarterback? Senior quarterback? Or just a quarterback with high a salary based on performance? I believe levels are instruments for managers not employees.
- nostrebored 4y ago
  Everyone who cares about Brady is watching him and knows how he is performing. This is not true of engineers.
  - jordanbeiber 4y ago
    This is why I’m stating it’s a management tool. Poor management requires boxes. Better management actually care and help employees perform and improve. In the end it’s about culture.
- brhsagain 4y ago
  I agree with you that a level system creates bad incentives for everyone. But what they do provide is a rubric for the ambitious 23 year old who wants to climb to the top of whatever group he’s in. If you get rid of levels, what’s the new hierarchy for him to climb? If you don’t specify a hierarchy, one is going to form anyway, and then it’s even more out of your control. If you’re going to say the hierarchy should be based on people doing real work, well I agree, but that is pretty much impossible to measure in groups beyond a certain size. This groups beyond a certain size problem is the root of the problem, not levels, which are just a stopgap measure to slow the brakes on the deterioration and degeneracy that you find in any gigantic group of people.