"Growth" in this context means impact to and relevance within the organization. It's mostly a leadership thing.
Essentially, you don't need to micromanage the work that Staff+ Engineers do, but it's critical to stream information to them throughout the week and sync with them once a week to align and calibrate.
If you do this consistently week over week, that engineer will flourish within the organization. If not, they'll continue to work within their domain until they see no more growth opportunities and then they'll leave.
Source: I've been a Principal Engineer for about four years and didn't really grow under some managers who left me alone. Once I found a manager that consistently invested in me I really thrived, and now I'm a Senior Principal Engineer and feel more comfortable in my current role than earlier.
Sorry, but what is a senior principle engineer? My understanding is that as far as engineers go principle is the top level - a true technical authority for an organization.
My guess: Someone who is not into management (or not good at it) may be powerful when they work on a problem but naturally narrowly focused — management can help them prioritize, see the bigger picture, and shift their focus when needed. Autonomy and independent critical thought are important, and so is relevance to business priorities.
My interpretation of "growth" in that context is "incremental progress towards the next promotion or performance rating bucket". And it doesn't say that it doesn't happen without feedback, it effectively says that regular feedback helps it happen faster.
They probably don't mean "incremental progress towards a better job elsewhere", and yet that's the real fast track (though somewhat less so at the >=Staff level).
It just means that the managers in the company like you. In functional companies, that makes you a better engineer or EM. In dysfunctional companies, probably not, unfortunately.
Comments
Am I the only that find most of these management articles extremely condescending?
For example:
"If you aren’t giving them weekly feedback, you’re delaying their growth."
What? Like I'm not capable of improvement whitout my managers approval? What is even "growth" in this context?
"Growth" in this context means impact to and relevance within the organization. It's mostly a leadership thing.
Essentially, you don't need to micromanage the work that Staff+ Engineers do, but it's critical to stream information to them throughout the week and sync with them once a week to align and calibrate.
If you do this consistently week over week, that engineer will flourish within the organization. If not, they'll continue to work within their domain until they see no more growth opportunities and then they'll leave.
Source: I've been a Principal Engineer for about four years and didn't really grow under some managers who left me alone. Once I found a manager that consistently invested in me I really thrived, and now I'm a Senior Principal Engineer and feel more comfortable in my current role than earlier.
Sorry, but what is a senior principle engineer? My understanding is that as far as engineers go principle is the top level - a true technical authority for an organization.
Larger organizations can have a more defined job architecture than just Principal.
At my company Senior Principal is like a Senior Director, and the IC track continues past that. Here's the list for IC / Management tracks:
Software Engineer
Senior Software Engineer / Engineering Manager
Staff Engineer / Senior Manager
Principal Engineer / Director
Senior Principal Engineer / Senior Director
Engineering Fellow / Vice President
I think its a poor turn of phrase. Given the context, I would replace delaying with slowing.
We all improve faster with effective feedback loops.
Well we all learn faster with effective feedback loops. Improve depends on what the end goals are defined as and by whom.
My guess: Someone who is not into management (or not good at it) may be powerful when they work on a problem but naturally narrowly focused — management can help them prioritize, see the bigger picture, and shift their focus when needed. Autonomy and independent critical thought are important, and so is relevance to business priorities.
My interpretation of "growth" in that context is "incremental progress towards the next promotion or performance rating bucket". And it doesn't say that it doesn't happen without feedback, it effectively says that regular feedback helps it happen faster.
They probably don't mean "incremental progress towards a better job elsewhere", and yet that's the real fast track (though somewhat less so at the >=Staff level).
It just means that the managers in the company like you. In functional companies, that makes you a better engineer or EM. In dysfunctional companies, probably not, unfortunately.