[imiric]

> Nothing is not your job.

Yeah, screw that.

These roles with fancy titles may come with astronomical compensation for an engineer—and rightfully so—but they're essentially buying your soul. You're not an executive, and are still below them on the political and compensation ladder, but you'll easily have 10x more on your plate than an executive. You'll be expected to act as a lap dog for the company for anything tech-related, while you probably will only enjoy 10% of that work. Your guidance will only be appreciated when the stock goes up, while you'll be the first to be held responsible for any technical screw ups.

So, nah. I'd rather continue to enjoy my work, maintain my freedom and peace of mind, and still get paid well enough as a perpetual "senior".

[questionableans]

It’s definitely not for everyone. But if the person, the org and role are a good fit, it’s not going to be that kind of worst case scenario.

IMO, “nothing is not your job” is odd phrasing that doesn’t really mean “everything is your job,” it’s more like “see something, say something—-in a way that is received constructively and results in positive change, whether through your own actions or others’.”

The unstated corollary is if you’re in a shitty organization that just will not get better, the most positive change you can make for the world is to stop wasting your time helping them and go somewhere better, where you can make a difference.

[the_af]

The way the author describes it (in contradicting terms; see the point where he claims if you're a Principal IC, you were promoted because you already acted like one, making the ~30 items of advice redundant) it's the most stressful position ever.

Be critical, don't be in the critical path, be laid back in an advisory role but be hands-on or you're setting yourself up for failure, work on stuff you enjoy but be ready to justify why it needs a Principal or you're "working on the wrong thing", sponsor, consult, explain to leadership, mentor, code, be present, do not be too present, "feel the pulse", don't attend too many meetings, don't attend too few, gently nudge, don't speak all the time, be careful about staying quiet, etc etc.

Seems like hell. And presumably, you'll get fired if things turn out badly with a project.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[cvwright]

The contradictions are difficult but wisdom has always been like that. See for example the book of Proverbs, it’s full of contradictory advice.

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him.”

Versus

“Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.”

The skill is to understand the truth of both statements, and to discern when to apply each one.

[the_af]

I'm not sold on that kind of wisdom, it's very close to empty platitudes.

Atheist here, so Bible wisdom is especially not useful to me.

[LPisGood]

All that and also without a team of engineers working with you on the same problems, and you have limited formal power to actually set priorities and assign work. That sounds miserable.

[questionableans]

The way it works is you convince engineers and managers to want to work with you.

[LPisGood]

Making your whole living on influence without authority sounds awful.

[questionableans]

That’s life. Unless you’re a hermit, a complete pushover, or a slave master, you’re constantly trying to influence without authority.

Want to go out to dinner with friends? That’s influence without authority right there.

Want to get your PR approved? Influence without authority.

Trying to get your point across to strangers online? Ditto.

[zb]

It’s a lot better than the reverse.

[questionableans]

It’s all about being balanced and picking the right strategy for the situation, not doing everything all at once. A guide like this could be useful for someone to consult when they find themselves in a different situation, regardless of their seniority level.

And in my experience, more senior engineers don’t have a greater risk of being fired for a project going badly because they identify problems to work on that matter and are within their areas of expertise, and evaluate possible risks early and communicate them.

[the_af]

Being balanced about political/soft skills makes me nervous, especially when it becomes a mandate and your main role. Some people are good at it, some are bad -- but it's completely irrational to expect this to be the logical next step for ICs and senior engineers.

I've seen it backfire spectacularly when a very senior engineer who worked in a critical part of the product was forced into this "because of promotions", then because he was an introvert did it poorly and got a really bad performance review ("underperformer"), got upset and quit. Aftermath: his manager ended up getting fired because of this screwup, but truly that was scapegoating. What's worse is he was happy in his previous role, doing groundbreaking work, didn't want the promotion and wasn't planning on leaving.

I'm not disputing what you say, but in my experience the middle technical roles are the safest. Too junior and you'll be the first to be axed for mediocre performance, too senior and you'll be blamed for failures and fired (sometimes for playing the political game and losing). Meanwhile, the mid/senior programmers doing the work will keep on.

Unless there's another round of layoffs, those upset everything.

[questionableans]

That’s why a lot of companies only promote after demonstrating a track record of performing at the next level.

It can also be an argument for secret levels. Although I’m not sure how useful that really is in practice.

For someone who does well at influence, it’s not a mandate, it’s permission to spend some time on the nontechnical factors that are necessary to make your work turn out better. And that also means helping others who have good ideas but aren’t comfortable with the influence part themselves.

[the_af]

> That’s why a lot of companies only promote after demonstrating a track record of performing at the next level.

If that's the case, why is this article needed? Someone promoted to Principal is already savvy, why would they benefit from this advice?