[sruffell]

"biggest mistake is still having a tech ladder"?

What specifically is this referring to? A separate career progression for techs vs managers? I thought that was desirable so you don't need to move your best engineers out of engineering positions to promote them. I fear I'm missing something.

[mmt]

If I understand correctly, it's suggesting that having formal levels, regardless of whether managers do or not, is what's undesirable.

I infer the alternative to be flat, such that there's only difference in compensation, with no difference in formal title.

Perhaps I'm biased, since I very much believe you can call me whatever you want, as long as I'm suitably paid. This function-over-form attitude is why I prefer startups.

[bmj]

Perhaps I'm biased, since I very much believe you can call me whatever you want, as long as I'm suitably paid. This function-over-form attitude is why I prefer startups.

Then I'm biased, too. I don't work for a start-up (100+ employees, with only seven of us doing software development), but we really don't have "career tracks." There are two management positions in our group (VP and lead engineer), so unless one of them leaves the company, no one is moving up, nor do titles change, even with raises. And this suits me perfectly fine.