5 ms·

The issue of seniority always bugs me. If a 26 year old guy who writes "good enough" code can be a Senior, which I see very often, what's left? Some ideas, pos

The issue of seniority always bugs me. If a 26 year old guy who writes "good enough" code can be a Senior, which I see very often, what's left? Some ideas, possibly an answer: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/the-trajectory-of-a-software-engineer-and-where-it-all-goes-wrong/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/the-trajector... What companies tend to call "Senior" is usually around 1.4-1.6 in terms of responsibility. That said, most companies don't give you 1.4-level work until you're 1.7-1.8 in ability. "Senior" is a title inflation at this point. I wouldn't join a startup (or any company for less than 0.9 times what I can make in finance) for less than a VP-level title, even though I'd be perfectly happy to code full-time and have no reports.

fizx 14y ago
Also, if you go by the google ratings, which are similar, you get: Intern Software Engineer Senior Software Engineer Staff Engineer Senior Staff Engineer Principal Engineer Distinguished Engineer Fellow All of a sudden, "senior" doesn't feel very far up the totem pole.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  If I ever develop an HR system/title hierarchy (and I don't see this as likely) titles will be more ornate at the bottom. At the top: Programmer.
  - SatvikBeri 14y ago
    Not to mention Coder and Bug Fixer.
  - guard-of-terra 14y ago
    I remember a talk by collegues ten years ago when they suggested we have to have "grand vizier" or "padishah" titles.
  - trhtrsh 14y ago
    "Fellow" sort of gives you that already.
  - ojbyrne 14y ago
    I remember hearing that this is basically the way it works in management. The higher you go the more general your position becomes. CEO President Vice President of ___ Director of ____ _____ Coordinator of ____ and _____
    - nostrademons 14y ago
      I always figure that if I found another startup, I'll print up 2 sets of business cards. One will have the title "Founder & CEO" for people who are impressed by that stuff. The other will have the title "Disruptive Influence" for everyone who's cool.
      - dalke 14y ago
        My business cards, even back to my first industry job in Palo Alto, have always had nothing listed for a position. On the "smaller title is import important" measure, I win!
- xxpor 14y ago
  Interesting, compare Amazon: SDE intern SDE Sr. SDE Principal Engineer Sr. Pr. Eng. Distinguished Engineer (VP level, ex: Peter Vosshall)
- rayiner 14y ago
  Not quite as bad as finance where you're a VP like 5-6 years in.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    Or "Partner" in law.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      Is "partner" an example of title inflation? Law firms do have a lot of "partners" (anywhere from 20% to 50% of lawyers at a large firm), but I think it's more a matter of law firms just having naturally flat structures. Each partner operates pretty autonomously in terms of bringing in business, managing associates, running cases, etc. Levels of organization above "partners" are more facilitative and strategic (where to open new offices, etc) than operational.
      - jaggederest 14y ago
        Partner actually has a practical meaning: co-owner of the partnership. So it's more like 'stockholder', in that it's a title of objective value: this person owns a portion of the firm. I sometimes suspect that software engineers should operate more like lawyers, in that firms don't generally hire lawyers internally.
      - barry-cotter 14y ago
        Not really but some firms have tried. There are equity and non equity partners at some firms, for example. If you eant more detail than you will ever use use google Adam Smith, Esq.
    - roel_v 14y ago
      Eh you don't get made partner after just sticking around for a few years, partners are participants in the firm's capital who usually need to buy themselves in. Partners in law firms can not be compared to roles in other companies where employees are just that, employees.
  - 14y ago
- nostrademons 14y ago
  The Google rankings are misleading because many managers stay on the engineering ladder. (For example, Amit Singhal, who runs all of Search, invented the Google ranking algorithm, and is an ACM Fellow, was a "Distinguished Engineer" when I joined.) Staff through Principal are really management ranks - it's very hard to get to Staff without managing people or being a tech lead on a large project. Distinguished/Fellow is weird - it's split between people who have several hundred people reporting up to them, and engineers who have nobody reporting to them but are allowed to do whatever they want. I heard one of my PMs say that "Senior SWE" at Google is roughly equivalent to "Director" at Oracle (which also suffers from massive title inflation). He was, I think, the youngest Director at Oracle before he came to Google (he got that title when he was 27).
  - fizx 14y ago
    I was under the impression that to be staff+ you had to be a leader (technical direction) but not a manager (performance reviews, people stuff). How accurate is that?
    - nostrademons 14y ago
      That's true, but usually being a technical leader of a large project implies managing the people on it, if only because it's good for people to have managers that actually know what their day-to-day accomplishments are. I do know of exceptions. There are a few people who get to staff and even beyond without managing people, but I've heard it's very hard and usually involves TLing a project of the scope of Google Instant (and then you frequently get made a manager afterwards, unless you really strenuously object). TLing is a completely different skillset from engineering anyway - it's much more interrupt-driven, people-focused, and basically involves being a mentor, teacher, and shit umbrella. When I've TLed projects, I usually find myself spending about 30% of my time coding and 70% communicating with other departments, debugging obscure bugs, managing up, and making sure all the critical parts are covered. Coworkers that are staff+ and TL larger projects usually find it's 0% coding and 100% dealing with politics & coordination.
ricardobeat 14y ago
In the US things are probably much better, but around here it's common to see senior positions filled by people at 0.8-1.3 on that scale, partly due to a shortage of developers and good education/experience. It's specially true at larger corporations.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  around here it's common to see senior positions filled by 0.8-1.3 "engineers" on that scale That's scary. One thing I'm finding is that it's really hard to get into a position where you can function at a 1.5+ level. Most companies want reliable mediocrity, not excellence. The reason there are so few 1.5+ engineers is that there's so little 1.5+ work out there. I think that if a few companies had the balls to man up and go to open allocation, we'd see a dramatically higher level of software talent in a few years.

fizx 14y ago

Also, if you go by the google ratings, which are similar, you get: Intern Software Engineer Senior Software Engineer Staff Engineer Senior Staff Engineer Principal Engineer Distinguished Engineer Fellow All of a sudden, "senior" doesn't feel very far up the totem pole.

michaelochurch 14y ago
If I ever develop an HR system/title hierarchy (and I don't see this as likely) titles will be more ornate at the bottom. At the top: Programmer.
- SatvikBeri 14y ago
  Not to mention Coder and Bug Fixer.
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  I remember a talk by collegues ten years ago when they suggested we have to have "grand vizier" or "padishah" titles.
- trhtrsh 14y ago
  "Fellow" sort of gives you that already.
- ojbyrne 14y ago
  I remember hearing that this is basically the way it works in management. The higher you go the more general your position becomes. CEO President Vice President of ___ Director of ____ _____ Coordinator of ____ and _____
  - nostrademons 14y ago
    I always figure that if I found another startup, I'll print up 2 sets of business cards. One will have the title "Founder & CEO" for people who are impressed by that stuff. The other will have the title "Disruptive Influence" for everyone who's cool.
    - dalke 14y ago
      My business cards, even back to my first industry job in Palo Alto, have always had nothing listed for a position. On the "smaller title is import important" measure, I win!
xxpor 14y ago
Interesting, compare Amazon: SDE intern SDE Sr. SDE Principal Engineer Sr. Pr. Eng. Distinguished Engineer (VP level, ex: Peter Vosshall)
rayiner 14y ago
Not quite as bad as finance where you're a VP like 5-6 years in.
- rhizome 14y ago
  Or "Partner" in law.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Is "partner" an example of title inflation? Law firms do have a lot of "partners" (anywhere from 20% to 50% of lawyers at a large firm), but I think it's more a matter of law firms just having naturally flat structures. Each partner operates pretty autonomously in terms of bringing in business, managing associates, running cases, etc. Levels of organization above "partners" are more facilitative and strategic (where to open new offices, etc) than operational.
    - jaggederest 14y ago
      Partner actually has a practical meaning: co-owner of the partnership. So it's more like 'stockholder', in that it's a title of objective value: this person owns a portion of the firm. I sometimes suspect that software engineers should operate more like lawyers, in that firms don't generally hire lawyers internally.
    - barry-cotter 14y ago
      Not really but some firms have tried. There are equity and non equity partners at some firms, for example. If you eant more detail than you will ever use use google Adam Smith, Esq.
  - roel_v 14y ago
    Eh you don't get made partner after just sticking around for a few years, partners are participants in the firm's capital who usually need to buy themselves in. Partners in law firms can not be compared to roles in other companies where employees are just that, employees.
- 14y ago
nostrademons 14y ago
The Google rankings are misleading because many managers stay on the engineering ladder. (For example, Amit Singhal, who runs all of Search, invented the Google ranking algorithm, and is an ACM Fellow, was a "Distinguished Engineer" when I joined.) Staff through Principal are really management ranks - it's very hard to get to Staff without managing people or being a tech lead on a large project. Distinguished/Fellow is weird - it's split between people who have several hundred people reporting up to them, and engineers who have nobody reporting to them but are allowed to do whatever they want. I heard one of my PMs say that "Senior SWE" at Google is roughly equivalent to "Director" at Oracle (which also suffers from massive title inflation). He was, I think, the youngest Director at Oracle before he came to Google (he got that title when he was 27).
- fizx 14y ago
  I was under the impression that to be staff+ you had to be a leader (technical direction) but not a manager (performance reviews, people stuff). How accurate is that?
  - nostrademons 14y ago
    That's true, but usually being a technical leader of a large project implies managing the people on it, if only because it's good for people to have managers that actually know what their day-to-day accomplishments are. I do know of exceptions. There are a few people who get to staff and even beyond without managing people, but I've heard it's very hard and usually involves TLing a project of the scope of Google Instant (and then you frequently get made a manager afterwards, unless you really strenuously object). TLing is a completely different skillset from engineering anyway - it's much more interrupt-driven, people-focused, and basically involves being a mentor, teacher, and shit umbrella. When I've TLed projects, I usually find myself spending about 30% of my time coding and 70% communicating with other departments, debugging obscure bugs, managing up, and making sure all the critical parts are covered. Coworkers that are staff+ and TL larger projects usually find it's 0% coding and 100% dealing with politics & coordination.

ricardobeat 14y ago

In the US things are probably much better, but around here it's common to see senior positions filled by people at 0.8-1.3 on that scale, partly due to a shortage of developers and good education/experience. It's specially true at larger corporations.

michaelochurch 14y ago
around here it's common to see senior positions filled by 0.8-1.3 "engineers" on that scale That's scary. One thing I'm finding is that it's really hard to get into a position where you can function at a 1.5+ level. Most companies want reliable mediocrity, not excellence. The reason there are so few 1.5+ engineers is that there's so little 1.5+ work out there. I think that if a few companies had the balls to man up and go to open allocation, we'd see a dramatically higher level of software talent in a few years.