3 ms·

There are many different ways to grow beyond staff engineer: - Become an expert in something hard. Fix bugs nobody else can. This requires sticking around for

by t8sr 3y ago

There are many different ways to grow beyond staff engineer: - Become an expert in something hard. Fix bugs nobody else can. This requires sticking around for longer than most people, maybe 10 years or more. - Have impact across the industry. Maintain a kernel subsystem, run a C++ subcommittee, etc. - Be a TL for multiple teams, because you have experience and a plan the other TLs can get behind. - Wear multiple hats, e.g. be a solid manager who is also a really good engineer. Be great at, e.g. Audio and ML, or some other rare combo. These archetypes are starting to get documented by some companies as part of their careers ladders, even. As a SWE, you have many options to create scope. As an EM, you really only have one.

gmfawcett 3y ago
> Become an expert in something hard. Fix bugs nobody else can. This is risky advice. :) Context matters. It's going to sound very appealing to a self-motivated, mobile IC, and could work very well in orgs that value individual effort. But in many orgs, solo experts playing non-fungible roles are very big red flags, and can draw negative management attention. Maybe I could build a team around you... but I might not have the resources, or the problem might not warrant it. So I just might end up making your work life harder -- mitigating the risk by devaluing the service you're working on, just moving it to SaaS, or maybe keeping it but making you train up all your colleagues on the risk area (turning you into an unhappy tutor), etc.
- surajrmal 3y ago
  It might be better to phrase it as an architectural expert. Being in a position where you understand how everything works together better than anyone else is valuable. You can't necessarily train any other person to have such diverse knowledge, nor outsource it. This might lead to you being able to solve otherwise unfixable bugs, but that's more of a side effect.
  - gmfawcett 3y ago
    Maybe. I get that being the best source of information might be a job-security feature. But it doesn't necessarily translate into growth opportunities. From a manager's POV, I might view you as a hoarder of information, a silo builder, a poor communicator, or poor team player. You might get job security out of this, because your knowledge will cement you in place. Why would we promote the linchpin out of the system they are holding together? Or it might just draw scrutiny to the larger business risks of your system, as I mentioned earlier. If you could leverage your knowledge in a business-strategic way -- e.g., empower a team to work better by clarifying, simplifying, and standardizing the architecture -- you might draw attention as a future leader. (If you have a selfish boss who will steal credit, a little more political work might be needed alongside this.)
dilyevsky 3y ago
Most of your points are requirements for staff not “beyond staff”
- t8sr 3y ago
  I don’t think so - I’ve been in promotion committees to L7 and I feel fairly confident those are examples of L7 impact. Not by themselves sufficient maybe, but they’re the kind of stuff L7 SWEs do with their time. I suppose I have heard that the L6 bar has lowered somewhat from ~2015, mostly in response to people complaining about being stuck at L5. But I wouldn’t have any first hand experience with that, other than my own promotions, which surprised me every time. So maybe the bar has been lowered.
  - dilyevsky 3y ago
    Well at least they should be and most companies other than faang don't have enough scale to warrant staff vs sr staff (L7) breakdown so next level is principal with company-wide impact. > I suppose I have heard that the L6 bar has lowered somewhat from ~2015 Yes title inflation is real. A lot of "Staffs" today would barely make it Senior 10-15 years ago. IMO this is a result of ZIRP so we might see reversal of that trend soon...

by t8sr 3y ago

gmfawcett 3y ago

> Become an expert in something hard. Fix bugs nobody else can. This is risky advice. :) Context matters. It's going to sound very appealing to a self-motivated, mobile IC, and could work very well in orgs that value individual effort. But in many orgs, solo experts playing non-fungible roles are very big red flags, and can draw negative management attention. Maybe I could build a team around you... but I might not have the resources, or the problem might not warrant it. So I just might end up making your work life harder -- mitigating the risk by devaluing the service you're working on, just moving it to SaaS, or maybe keeping it but making you train up all your colleagues on the risk area (turning you into an unhappy tutor), etc.

surajrmal 3y ago
It might be better to phrase it as an architectural expert. Being in a position where you understand how everything works together better than anyone else is valuable. You can't necessarily train any other person to have such diverse knowledge, nor outsource it. This might lead to you being able to solve otherwise unfixable bugs, but that's more of a side effect.
- gmfawcett 3y ago
  Maybe. I get that being the best source of information might be a job-security feature. But it doesn't necessarily translate into growth opportunities. From a manager's POV, I might view you as a hoarder of information, a silo builder, a poor communicator, or poor team player. You might get job security out of this, because your knowledge will cement you in place. Why would we promote the linchpin out of the system they are holding together? Or it might just draw scrutiny to the larger business risks of your system, as I mentioned earlier. If you could leverage your knowledge in a business-strategic way -- e.g., empower a team to work better by clarifying, simplifying, and standardizing the architecture -- you might draw attention as a future leader. (If you have a selfish boss who will steal credit, a little more political work might be needed alongside this.)

dilyevsky 3y ago

Most of your points are requirements for staff not “beyond staff”

t8sr 3y ago
I don’t think so - I’ve been in promotion committees to L7 and I feel fairly confident those are examples of L7 impact. Not by themselves sufficient maybe, but they’re the kind of stuff L7 SWEs do with their time. I suppose I have heard that the L6 bar has lowered somewhat from ~2015, mostly in response to people complaining about being stuck at L5. But I wouldn’t have any first hand experience with that, other than my own promotions, which surprised me every time. So maybe the bar has been lowered.
- dilyevsky 3y ago
  Well at least they should be and most companies other than faang don't have enough scale to warrant staff vs sr staff (L7) breakdown so next level is principal with company-wide impact. > I suppose I have heard that the L6 bar has lowered somewhat from ~2015 Yes title inflation is real. A lot of "Staffs" today would barely make it Senior 10-15 years ago. IMO this is a result of ZIRP so we might see reversal of that trend soon...