Measuring oneself as an engineer by the title of the salary band you're in is a disservice.
I remember at Bell Labs they had one title: MTS (Member of Technical Staff). You were an engineer, and that was that. (disclaimer: there were a handful of DMTSes (Distinguished Member of Technical Staff)).
No one said, "I'm an E7" or "I'm a Staff Engineer II". Those statements strike me as distasteful. And begs the question if we're being suckered by Human Resource's gamification of work.
I worked at a company, Pivotal Labs, where everyone's title was "Pivot". It made for an egalitarian workplace. That changed after the acquisition, and we got titles. My proudest moment? Not when I was promoted from Senior Engineer to Staff Engineer, but rather the after-hours work I did with Dimtriy to expand our offering to include IPv6.
At my current startup, there are no titles, and I'm grateful for that.
I had the pleasure of working with a handful of Pivots for about 2 years, and I have to say that felt like the closest I ever got to a healthy engineering culture. Delightful people, superb engineers, always focused on working and learning together. I feel really privileged to have worked in that environment.
For the first 10 years or so of my career, I didn’t even know my job title. I knew my pay, which is what I cared (and still care) about. They could call me the janitor as long as they paid me a good salary and the work didn’t change.
It wasn’t until one of my startups was bought by a big corp that I came to learn my job title, because suddenly it was tied to compensation. That mattered.
> Measuring oneself as an engineer by the title of the salary band you're in is a disservice.
It's really not that deep - people do this because both a title and salary are effectively money you can bank and that's the only thing that matters - we don't work grueling, stressful, tedious, jobs just the sake of "a hard day's work".
> Not when I was promoted from Senior Engineer to Staff Engineer, but rather the after-hours work I did with Dimtriy to expand our offering to include IPv6.
I wish people would introspect more deeply instead of perpetuating toxic relationships with corporations; you're basically saying your most gratifying experience at work (where you are given a small slice of the net on your labor) was when you did something completely abstract and not when you got more money, more status, more whatever? Ok that's like saying my most gratifying experience at school was not when I graduated but when I had to sit in detention. Note I could've said "when I discovered XYZ mathematical principle" but I didn't because they're both equally as arbitrary in the overall scheme (learn skills and move into the workforce).
> are effectively money you can bank and that's the only thing that matters
We may have to agree to disagree here.
Not even just talking about the case where someone's worked in the tech industry long enough with a low enough expense lifestyle that money literally does not matter to them anymore...
A lot of people will work specific jobs not because they're trying to optimize for the most possible money.
You're coming at the employer relationship from a fundamentally different place than the parent comment you're responding to.
I'm assuming their age because of when Pivotal Labs was a thing, but there was a period from about the late 90s to the early 2010s where many people in the valley believed in an ideal of ascetic tech monks where we did this for the love of the work and not purely for status or money. It's not like those elements were ever wholly absent, but nominally egalitarian hierarchies weren't the weirdest things in hindsight.
> Note I could've said "when I discovered XYZ mathematical principle" but I didn't because they're both equally as arbitrary
Wow. I cannot relate to someone who only (mostly) view's their own accomplishments as bargaining chips for money/prestige. Even accomplishments that could have widespread benefit to others.
But I accept productive people can operate in different ways.
This kind of self meta-analysis can be amusing to think about sometimes, but I think more often than not it's actually harmful to your own sense of progress or worth. In my opinion the two sides of this coin that are hard to reconcile are: "You shouldn't limit your own ability" and "It's important to be realistic". Comparing yourself to those around you is human nature, but here you're asking us to compare ourselves to what we imagine is the peak of ourselves in order to stay realistic. I guarantee you that the people around you who are actually making forward progress haven't given a single thought to whether or not they've "peaked".
I think an important skill is to comfortably see things in completely different ways, and leverage each view for how it helps.
Both views are simplified models, there is no conflict. Non-parallel lines are not a contradiction. For best navigation, triangulate. In a high N-dimensional nonlinear situation, accumulate lines/models/viewpoints.
Don't confuse arbitrary career ranking (which varies org to org) with earning potential. I have a relatively low effort remote job with fantastic compensation in a very large company. The responsibility is low, the opportunities to move about are many and often appear. I get job offers all the time and think: Yeah, it's more money, but will it be better conditions? This is the longest I've ever worked at a company (over half decade) and I am always waiting until just after getting my cost of living increase and bonus, before reconsidering.
The thing I'm most curious about from this article is how/why the author was demoted from E9 to E7. A demotion in itself is pretty unusual, but being bumped down 2 levels seems super weird.
E: ok watched an interview the author gave and the answer was very boring. He requested a demotion because he moved from management back to IC.
I think it's relatively straightforward to get to E5 even if just by being hired as one. A good number, I want to say a majority but don't have the data, of externally hired E5 at FAANG were E4 in their previous role.
Getting E5 to E6 seems to be the great filter. But if you know what it takes to go from E5 to E6, I think going from E6 to E9 is smooth sailing (provided you find wind in your sails).
But by then the marginal utility of a promotion starts dropping sharply. If you're already earning upwards of $450k as an E5, $550k or even $800k isn't that attractive.
> But by then the marginal utility of a promotion starts dropping sharply. If you're already earning upwards of $450k as an E5, $550k or even $800k isn't that attractive.
Going from $450K/yr to $800K/yr probably triples or quadruples the amount you can save per year without feeling like you’re constantly scrimping.
That drives down the time to F-you money, which is appealing and gives substantial psychological safety/power.
I consider myself lucky that I got to witness this blog post peter out in real life with a parental figure of mine, and thus internalize what sort of career track I’d like to have/work toward.
For me? I’d like to be a CIO someday - and believe I can get there, albeit for a smaller firm where outcomes are more important than politics, which rules out basically all of the Fortune 500. I’m fine if I don’t reach that point, though, as everything outside of work is ultimately more important - relationships, hobbies, enjoying this fleeting existence. Work is a means to an end, and so my skills are means to the end of a better career. I don’t think in terms of salary bands or titles, I look at my career in terms of skills and opportunities.
The traditional career is dead, is my (meandering) point. This article gives some sorely needed wake-up calls that we need to think bigger and more holistically than mere promotion cycles if we want to find our personal success.
I think this is the first time I disagree with everything said. A properly motivated man can be whatever they want. Astronaut is absolutely within reach, along with anything else, with the exception of POTUS if you weren't born on US soil. Do not conflate your lack of 110% motivation to a cause/goal/solution as lies.
Yes. There are literally thousands of sports doctors and coaches willing to work with you. Nothing is stopping you but your high horse. Work with what you have and just do it.
I think you are confusing physical possibility with statistical probability.
And even physically, some things are just what they are. You can't escape death; you can't escape from a black hole, etc. You may claim these things may be possible in the future, but we are talking about what is currently possible.
But, the main way to understand the argument being made is: even if something is physically possible, if it is guaranteed that only say 10% people of people will achieve it, then you need to manage your expectations. It is exactly the same reason why gambling is a bad idea. In the aggregate, you are guaranteed to lose
A lot of grief arises because people ignore this basic concept. And, a lot of things in life are zero-sum: not all employees can be at the top level, otherwise that loses its meaning. Similarly, not all citizens can be president, not all people can be rich, etc.
I know that you know this isn’t true. You are telling me the only thing keeping a guy in a wheelchair out of the NBA is motivation? As for astronauts, NASA has a height limit of 193cm to be on a flight crew, so no amount of motivation is going to let a 6’6” guy be an astronaut.
These are the easy and obvious counters to your assertion that motivation is all it takes to be anything, but it is even true at most things. We like to believe that hard work is all that is needed to achieve anything you want, but any rigorous thinking and life experience will show this isn’t true. People have different skills and abilities, and some people simply don’t have the skills for certain things no matter how much they work at it.
Lastly, some of these things are simply numbers games. Every profession only has a limited number of opportunities, and some of these most highly desired ones are extremely limited. If there are two people who want to be the head coach of the Los Angeles Lakers, no amount of motivation is going to prevent at least one of them from failing to get the job. Even if both candidates had infinite motivation and infinite skill and infinite experience, only one of them can have the job.
the storyline by which "person under the flight limit becomes astronaut" is something like: they become famous and renowned and respected for some kind of science at which they are an expert; in the next twenty years spaceflight changes tremendously; the rules change; they end up on the shortlist for a flight colonizing Mars because they deserve it and rules are made up anyway.
So "success" looks like "changing the world". Doesn't it mean it can't be done! Just that it's gonna be hard.
not that this disproves your point per se, but, like... saying something can't happen because of rules is silly. Rules change all the time. The NBA example is better. But can a wheelchair-bound person end up professionally-good at basketball? Sure, maybe, in a future where medicine accomplishes a lot and they end up with bionic legs or whatever, plus they're incredibly driven to test those legs on basketball. Why not? The future can be anything.
NWBA is a legit basketball league with pro athletes. NASA may limit your astronaut dreams due to height but SpaceX won't.
You state easy and obvious concerns, yet they all are self limiting..
I mean that's just obviously, objectively, not true. If you're born with 12-inch legs you are _not_ going to be an elite marathon runner. Heck, even if you're born with average genetics, you're not going to be an elite runner.
What would make us think the same thing isn't true of mental activities? Obviously there's a lot more noise in the signal, and it's a lot more subjective, but there's pretty much 0% chance that if anyone just "tries hard enough" they can become a genius.
Readit News
I remember at Bell Labs they had one title: MTS (Member of Technical Staff). You were an engineer, and that was that. (disclaimer: there were a handful of DMTSes (Distinguished Member of Technical Staff)).
No one said, "I'm an E7" or "I'm a Staff Engineer II". Those statements strike me as distasteful. And begs the question if we're being suckered by Human Resource's gamification of work.
I worked at a company, Pivotal Labs, where everyone's title was "Pivot". It made for an egalitarian workplace. That changed after the acquisition, and we got titles. My proudest moment? Not when I was promoted from Senior Engineer to Staff Engineer, but rather the after-hours work I did with Dimtriy to expand our offering to include IPv6.
At my current startup, there are no titles, and I'm grateful for that.
It wasn’t until one of my startups was bought by a big corp that I came to learn my job title, because suddenly it was tied to compensation. That mattered.
It's really not that deep - people do this because both a title and salary are effectively money you can bank and that's the only thing that matters - we don't work grueling, stressful, tedious, jobs just the sake of "a hard day's work".
> Not when I was promoted from Senior Engineer to Staff Engineer, but rather the after-hours work I did with Dimtriy to expand our offering to include IPv6.
I wish people would introspect more deeply instead of perpetuating toxic relationships with corporations; you're basically saying your most gratifying experience at work (where you are given a small slice of the net on your labor) was when you did something completely abstract and not when you got more money, more status, more whatever? Ok that's like saying my most gratifying experience at school was not when I graduated but when I had to sit in detention. Note I could've said "when I discovered XYZ mathematical principle" but I didn't because they're both equally as arbitrary in the overall scheme (learn skills and move into the workforce).
We may have to agree to disagree here.
Not even just talking about the case where someone's worked in the tech industry long enough with a low enough expense lifestyle that money literally does not matter to them anymore...
A lot of people will work specific jobs not because they're trying to optimize for the most possible money.
I'm assuming their age because of when Pivotal Labs was a thing, but there was a period from about the late 90s to the early 2010s where many people in the valley believed in an ideal of ascetic tech monks where we did this for the love of the work and not purely for status or money. It's not like those elements were ever wholly absent, but nominally egalitarian hierarchies weren't the weirdest things in hindsight.
Wow. I cannot relate to someone who only (mostly) view's their own accomplishments as bargaining chips for money/prestige. Even accomplishments that could have widespread benefit to others.
But I accept productive people can operate in different ways.
Dead Comment
Both views are simplified models, there is no conflict. Non-parallel lines are not a contradiction. For best navigation, triangulate. In a high N-dimensional nonlinear situation, accumulate lines/models/viewpoints.
E: ok watched an interview the author gave and the answer was very boring. He requested a demotion because he moved from management back to IC.
Original title: "Waxing Asymptotic in Career Velocity"
Getting E5 to E6 seems to be the great filter. But if you know what it takes to go from E5 to E6, I think going from E6 to E9 is smooth sailing (provided you find wind in your sails).
But by then the marginal utility of a promotion starts dropping sharply. If you're already earning upwards of $450k as an E5, $550k or even $800k isn't that attractive.
Going from $450K/yr to $800K/yr probably triples or quadruples the amount you can save per year without feeling like you’re constantly scrimping.
That drives down the time to F-you money, which is appealing and gives substantial psychological safety/power.
For me? I’d like to be a CIO someday - and believe I can get there, albeit for a smaller firm where outcomes are more important than politics, which rules out basically all of the Fortune 500. I’m fine if I don’t reach that point, though, as everything outside of work is ultimately more important - relationships, hobbies, enjoying this fleeting existence. Work is a means to an end, and so my skills are means to the end of a better career. I don’t think in terms of salary bands or titles, I look at my career in terms of skills and opportunities.
The traditional career is dead, is my (meandering) point. This article gives some sorely needed wake-up calls that we need to think bigger and more holistically than mere promotion cycles if we want to find our personal success.
The entire idea that anyone can do anything they put their mind to is a lie. There are all sorts of path dependencies that limit what people can do.
And even physically, some things are just what they are. You can't escape death; you can't escape from a black hole, etc. You may claim these things may be possible in the future, but we are talking about what is currently possible.
But, the main way to understand the argument being made is: even if something is physically possible, if it is guaranteed that only say 10% people of people will achieve it, then you need to manage your expectations. It is exactly the same reason why gambling is a bad idea. In the aggregate, you are guaranteed to lose
A lot of grief arises because people ignore this basic concept. And, a lot of things in life are zero-sum: not all employees can be at the top level, otherwise that loses its meaning. Similarly, not all citizens can be president, not all people can be rich, etc.
These are the easy and obvious counters to your assertion that motivation is all it takes to be anything, but it is even true at most things. We like to believe that hard work is all that is needed to achieve anything you want, but any rigorous thinking and life experience will show this isn’t true. People have different skills and abilities, and some people simply don’t have the skills for certain things no matter how much they work at it.
Lastly, some of these things are simply numbers games. Every profession only has a limited number of opportunities, and some of these most highly desired ones are extremely limited. If there are two people who want to be the head coach of the Los Angeles Lakers, no amount of motivation is going to prevent at least one of them from failing to get the job. Even if both candidates had infinite motivation and infinite skill and infinite experience, only one of them can have the job.
So "success" looks like "changing the world". Doesn't it mean it can't be done! Just that it's gonna be hard.
not that this disproves your point per se, but, like... saying something can't happen because of rules is silly. Rules change all the time. The NBA example is better. But can a wheelchair-bound person end up professionally-good at basketball? Sure, maybe, in a future where medicine accomplishes a lot and they end up with bionic legs or whatever, plus they're incredibly driven to test those legs on basketball. Why not? The future can be anything.
What would make us think the same thing isn't true of mental activities? Obviously there's a lot more noise in the signal, and it's a lot more subjective, but there's pretty much 0% chance that if anyone just "tries hard enough" they can become a genius.
My empiric objection is simply to watch this video. Everything here is objectively true:
https://youtu.be/cEItmb_a20M