4 ms·

I’m had all three titles at various points in my career but the reality is that my responsibilities and operational altitude varied widely from company to compa

I’m had all three titles at various points in my career but the reality is that my responsibilities and operational altitude varied widely from company to company. I just completed a job search after being laid off and one of the challenges of finding a job in leadership is deciphering what each company actually wants from their managers or directors or VPs. Some roles are “hands on”. For others that’s a red flag. For some it’s all about managing people and emotional intelligence. For others it’s all about technical acumen and technical direction. Sometimes what they are really looking for is exactly what the last person in the role did. In other cases, they want the opposite of the last person to hold the role. The only thing you can really depend on when it comes to leadership titles in software, in my experience, is that one’s title explains which meetings one is expected to attend.

thinkingtoilet 2y ago
I've had a similar experience, however I found it tied to the size of the company. If you're a director at a large corporation, you will be very siloed and you most likely won't be doing much coding. If you're a directory at a small company, you're going to be coding, managing coders, and being part of leadership and strategic discussions.
- _fat_santa 2y ago
  Can confirm. I currently work for an SMB (~150 employees) as a manager. Our VP doesn't write any code but the directors and managers are still IC's on projects. Right now I really like being an IC in addition to being manager cause I still have that coding itch to scratch, but I just know one day I will eventually graduate to role where I don't write any code. Long term it is the direction I want to go in but it's going to be bittersweet when I finally get to a role with no coding.
re-thc 2y ago
> The only thing you can really depend on when it comes to leadership titles in software It's not just leadership titles. Even if they list tech stack, responsibility or any of it it may not eventually be reality. Sometimes it's a wish list, sometimes it's planned and other times they "forgot" to update it.
bradlys 2y ago
Isn’t the most effective way to find out what you’ll be doing is by measuring how many people are going to be under you overall? A “vp” at a startup with 20 people under them will likely have very different responsibilities than a faang director with 200. I believe this is why you get asked how many people are under you when interviewing at these roles. The titles - as far as I’ve seen - are mostly meaningless. It’s about the scale of your decisions. I know the article talks about the type of influence/decisions you’ll be making. (Executing others decisions vs making the decisions) But I find it’s rare for these bigger companies to really give a shit about that. They care more about how many people you’ve had under you. It’s rare to see someone be VP at startups with a few people (and that’s their only experience) and then be VP at faang in their next role.
- trentnix 2y ago
  The "number of people you've had under you" does provides insight into what a role entails, but there's still a lot of variance. What does seem to be uniform is that the "number of people you've had under you" determines whether a hiring company will think you’re qualified for a job. Companies simply aren't likely to take a "risk" hiring an outsider that hasn't been in a role with a similar perceived scope of responsibility. And since actual here's-what-you're-doing-day-to-day responsibility can vary so much, the "number of people you've had under you" becomes a proxy for that. I understand the reasoning for why they put so much weight on the number of reports you’ve been previously responsible for, but it also explains why big companies stagnate. The people change but the thinking and strategy doesn’t.
trentnix 2y ago
s/I'm/I've
hexator 2y ago
And it's not necessarily a bad thing. I should think adaptive roles would be a benefit, not a hazard. At my company we simply list "software engineer, all levels" in our postings.

thinkingtoilet 2y ago

I've had a similar experience, however I found it tied to the size of the company. If you're a director at a large corporation, you will be very siloed and you most likely won't be doing much coding. If you're a directory at a small company, you're going to be coding, managing coders, and being part of leadership and strategic discussions.

_fat_santa 2y ago
Can confirm. I currently work for an SMB (~150 employees) as a manager. Our VP doesn't write any code but the directors and managers are still IC's on projects. Right now I really like being an IC in addition to being manager cause I still have that coding itch to scratch, but I just know one day I will eventually graduate to role where I don't write any code. Long term it is the direction I want to go in but it's going to be bittersweet when I finally get to a role with no coding.

re-thc 2y ago

> The only thing you can really depend on when it comes to leadership titles in software It's not just leadership titles. Even if they list tech stack, responsibility or any of it it may not eventually be reality. Sometimes it's a wish list, sometimes it's planned and other times they "forgot" to update it.

bradlys 2y ago

Isn’t the most effective way to find out what you’ll be doing is by measuring how many people are going to be under you overall? A “vp” at a startup with 20 people under them will likely have very different responsibilities than a faang director with 200. I believe this is why you get asked how many people are under you when interviewing at these roles. The titles - as far as I’ve seen - are mostly meaningless. It’s about the scale of your decisions. I know the article talks about the type of influence/decisions you’ll be making. (Executing others decisions vs making the decisions) But I find it’s rare for these bigger companies to really give a shit about that. They care more about how many people you’ve had under you. It’s rare to see someone be VP at startups with a few people (and that’s their only experience) and then be VP at faang in their next role.

trentnix 2y ago
The "number of people you've had under you" does provides insight into what a role entails, but there's still a lot of variance. What does seem to be uniform is that the "number of people you've had under you" determines whether a hiring company will think you’re qualified for a job. Companies simply aren't likely to take a "risk" hiring an outsider that hasn't been in a role with a similar perceived scope of responsibility. And since actual here's-what-you're-doing-day-to-day responsibility can vary so much, the "number of people you've had under you" becomes a proxy for that. I understand the reasoning for why they put so much weight on the number of reports you’ve been previously responsible for, but it also explains why big companies stagnate. The people change but the thinking and strategy doesn’t.

trentnix 2y ago

s/I'm/I've

hexator 2y ago

And it's not necessarily a bad thing. I should think adaptive roles would be a benefit, not a hazard. At my company we simply list "software engineer, all levels" in our postings.