3 ms·
> It encourages a mindset of saying, “what must I do to make L10” when you want to say, “I want a $10K raise.” > It's not obvious to me why this is a bad thing
by re-thc 2y ago
> It encourages a mindset of saying, “what must I do to make L10” when you want to say, “I want a $10K raise.”
> It's not obvious to me why this is a bad thing.
In most cases, level isn't the gaming type level. Level these days is more like different jobs. What used to be analyst, architect, tech lead etc are all disguised as "level".
As you rise in levels you might code less and focus on system design, coordinating, mentoring or something else. Is it really "career development"? It's moving sideways.
> Am I missing something here?
Yes, reward people for ownership, and getting better at their job. That's not what the current level system is.
- zeroonetwothree 2y agoI guess it depends on where you work. I’ve moved up four “levels” since I started and I basically just do the same thing. You could argue I should have been the higher level from the start and it took a while to get recognized.
- alistairSH 2y agoThis varies by employer. At my employer, we have several job families that encompass "software developer"... software engineer, cloud engineer, architect, and technical fellow. With the two engineering roles, there are levels... software engineer I, II, III, Lead, Principal. Architect starts with more seniority... architect (roughly equivalent to to Lead), principal architect. And technical fellow is "director level" - basically a terminal spot for ICs who are really good at building software but have no desire to manage people - they typically report to a VP or director - they do have lots of meetings, but they're also setting the technical direction of the company for the long haul.