Do you not think there's any difference between a senior who might be working well at a high level but just within one company, and a senior who might be doing work at the very top of their entire field worldwide?
Sure, there are different calibers of senior engineers, some are better than others. Some are better leaders, some are better writers, some are better instructors, etc.
But, principal, staff, lead, and senior are all pretty much the same tech skill level. Promotions to higher levels are mostly based on subjective attributes, like leadership qualities, personable qualities, innovation qualities, etc.
It’s mostly HR process to keep more rungs in individual contributor career track. Way to retain high performance engineers in the career ladder, and show that there are more opportunities for advancement.
But, principal, staff, lead, and senior are all pretty much the same tech skill level.
I don't really understand that... you think someone at the level of a distinguished engineer, maybe something like a Turing Award winner or someone who has invented fundamental concepts in the field, is 'pretty much the same tech skill level' as someone just promoted from mid-level developer doing routine development work?
I also don't see why it's 'title inflation' to recognise the difference between those two?
Comments
Do you not think there's any difference between a senior who might be working well at a high level but just within one company, and a senior who might be doing work at the very top of their entire field worldwide?
Sure, there are different calibers of senior engineers, some are better than others. Some are better leaders, some are better writers, some are better instructors, etc.
But, principal, staff, lead, and senior are all pretty much the same tech skill level. Promotions to higher levels are mostly based on subjective attributes, like leadership qualities, personable qualities, innovation qualities, etc.
It’s mostly HR process to keep more rungs in individual contributor career track. Way to retain high performance engineers in the career ladder, and show that there are more opportunities for advancement.
I don't really understand that... you think someone at the level of a distinguished engineer, maybe something like a Turing Award winner or someone who has invented fundamental concepts in the field, is 'pretty much the same tech skill level' as someone just promoted from mid-level developer doing routine development work?
I also don't see why it's 'title inflation' to recognise the difference between those two?