3 ms·

My opinion on career ladders and titles has zigzagged back and forth over the years. Today I'm in the camp that titles are, to put it succinctly, somewhat usefu

My opinion on career ladders and titles has zigzagged back and forth over the years. Today I'm in the camp that titles are, to put it succinctly, somewhat useful. Sure, you could be idealist and say that everyone should be judged on their own merits rather than a scale. Some companies don't have ladders. Out of big tech Netflix probably lasted the longest. And then they caved in [1]. Understanding why they finally decided to do it might highlight the practical considerations of why companies have ladders. Also from what I am able to gather OP is a white dude. That's fine, but we shouldn't underestimate how a job title helps people from underrepresented groups. For a sampling read some of the interviews at StaffEng [2]. [1] https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/netflix-levels/ https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/netflix-levels/ [2] https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/netflix-levels/ https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/netflix-levels/

rovolo 3y ago
> we shouldn't underestimate how a job title helps people from underrepresented groups That point is addressed in the post: > On the other hand, the measure corrects for insidious biases: the title can lift some of the burden of constantly having to prove your worth, especially if you're not a member of a historically privileged group. It can also correct for compensation bias: two staff engineers should be making the same amount, even if one of them is a white guy and the other isn't. (Compensation can get perilously out of whack without banding tied to titles.) The bias is still there, it's been compartmentalized into convincing the org that you meet a rubric, but you can at least bring receipts to that conversation.