3 ms·

I like how they promote engineers based on "mastery". This is very different from Google, who treats promotion as a tool. That is, mastery often is not the only

I like how they promote engineers based on "mastery". This is very different from Google, who treats promotion as a tool. That is, mastery often is not the only consideration. Sometimes it is not even a consideration. Of course, no one would say so officially, but more than one VP and director expressed this principle in different ways. And we can see the results: the promoted can be most important, most influential, most needed, or most trusted. Mastery of engineering is not necessarily in the equation.

dilyevsky 3y ago
Google promotes for “impact” and “sufficient complexity” so I would assume it requires some level of mastery to get them both accomplished at the same time so in theory they should promote same people in the same circumstances. Ofc in practice I’m sure neither actually do
arghnoname 3y ago
Delivering value as an entry level software development position requires some soft skills, but it's probably mostly determined by skill/mastery over technical subjects. As one advances, particularly at larger or more bureaucratic organizations, soft skills become more important. Being "most trusted" for instance, is of significant value. It suggests that one has built a reputation and delivered on his or her promises over a period of time and thus, can be trusted to lead a difficult or ambitious project. These things you mentioned, being important, influential, needed, or trusted, are all proxies for providing value over an extended period of time while maintaining good relations with peers. This is a good thing to select for when promoting up a hierarchy in a large human endeavor. Of course we all know cases where people get promoted because of their social clique for whom this isn't true, but it's not crazy to not just focus on mastery of hard skills.
- hintymad 3y ago
  Yeah, I'm neutral on the merits of different promotion philosophies. On the personal level, I'd prefer promotion on mastery because it gives an IC leverage: Jeff Dean can still code out a brand new system to solve an seemingly impossible challenge even if he leaves Google, but unfortunately for many tech leads, they wouldn't be able to draw boxes half as valuable if they were to depart Google because their expertise has already shifted to institutional knowledge of the company.

dilyevsky 3y ago

Google promotes for “impact” and “sufficient complexity” so I would assume it requires some level of mastery to get them both accomplished at the same time so in theory they should promote same people in the same circumstances. Ofc in practice I’m sure neither actually do

arghnoname 3y ago

Delivering value as an entry level software development position requires some soft skills, but it's probably mostly determined by skill/mastery over technical subjects. As one advances, particularly at larger or more bureaucratic organizations, soft skills become more important. Being "most trusted" for instance, is of significant value. It suggests that one has built a reputation and delivered on his or her promises over a period of time and thus, can be trusted to lead a difficult or ambitious project. These things you mentioned, being important, influential, needed, or trusted, are all proxies for providing value over an extended period of time while maintaining good relations with peers. This is a good thing to select for when promoting up a hierarchy in a large human endeavor. Of course we all know cases where people get promoted because of their social clique for whom this isn't true, but it's not crazy to not just focus on mastery of hard skills.

hintymad 3y ago
Yeah, I'm neutral on the merits of different promotion philosophies. On the personal level, I'd prefer promotion on mastery because it gives an IC leverage: Jeff Dean can still code out a brand new system to solve an seemingly impossible challenge even if he leaves Google, but unfortunately for many tech leads, they wouldn't be able to draw boxes half as valuable if they were to depart Google because their expertise has already shifted to institutional knowledge of the company.