5 ms·

I certainly like that companies are introducing yet another step in the IC ladder. Before it was like: junior1 -> junior2 -> senior1 -> senior2 -> manager. And

by danwee 3y ago

I certainly like that companies are introducing yet another step in the IC ladder. Before it was like: junior1 -> junior2 -> senior1 -> senior2 -> manager. And the money you get by being junior2/junior2/senior1 is not that much. Nowadays I see companies doing: ... -> senior1 -> senior2 -> staff1 -> staff2 -> manager. So, in the past I have quit a job at level staff1 (decent money), just to go to another company where they label me as senior 2 (more money, but this is not the topic of discussion here). So now, I have yet another opportunity to make more money by being promoted to staff1 (and then staff2) basically doing the same thing I have been doing all these recent years.

pc86 3y ago
I would stay away from any company that treats Staff as a natural progression on the road the management. You just have 4 senior levels at that point, which is fine if that's what you need/want, but it shows a genuine misunderstanding of the IC path. I'm a big fan of the 1 and 2 levels for mid+ as it gives a little more granularity, and the opportunity to increase pay a bit more and still have reasonable pay bands. But at the last senior level you really need to start focusing on whether you want to be in the IC track or the management track. You can certainly switch (I have) but they're very different and "ok you performed well as a Staff 2, we'll promote you to EM1 now" is a red flag in my opinion.
swozey 3y ago
I'm staff and I don't consider Manager a vertical step at all. It's a horizontal. Completely different type of job and I really doubt they make much more if more at all money than me. I would never go manager.
- JaumeGreen 3y ago
  I'm a manager now and it was a lateral move from development, no salary increase. So yeah, sometimes managers earn around the same as the top people they manage. Heck, I wouldn't mind earning less than some of the most brilliant ones. In fact I think I do earn less than someone that reports to me.
- throwaway1777 3y ago
  At meta and google they certainly don’t make more, the L6 manager and engineer bands are the same. Same for l7. At director level the bands are so wide it may not be the same between ic and managers even if it is in theory.

by danwee 3y ago

pc86 3y ago

I would stay away from any company that treats Staff as a natural progression on the road the management. You just have 4 senior levels at that point, which is fine if that's what you need/want, but it shows a genuine misunderstanding of the IC path. I'm a big fan of the 1 and 2 levels for mid+ as it gives a little more granularity, and the opportunity to increase pay a bit more and still have reasonable pay bands. But at the last senior level you really need to start focusing on whether you want to be in the IC track or the management track. You can certainly switch (I have) but they're very different and "ok you performed well as a Staff 2, we'll promote you to EM1 now" is a red flag in my opinion.

swozey 3y ago

I'm staff and I don't consider Manager a vertical step at all. It's a horizontal. Completely different type of job and I really doubt they make much more if more at all money than me. I would never go manager.

JaumeGreen 3y ago
I'm a manager now and it was a lateral move from development, no salary increase. So yeah, sometimes managers earn around the same as the top people they manage. Heck, I wouldn't mind earning less than some of the most brilliant ones. In fact I think I do earn less than someone that reports to me.
throwaway1777 3y ago
At meta and google they certainly don’t make more, the L6 manager and engineer bands are the same. Same for l7. At director level the bands are so wide it may not be the same between ic and managers even if it is in theory.