[mattgreenrocks]

I'd argue not every engineer is necessarily cut out for staff-level positions and responsibilities.

I've always felt staff+ was a bit of a trojan horse on the IC ladder. I understand the role and its importance to be closer to the work. But some companies really seem to love separating you from the work to be done in pursuit of the almighty iMpAcT.

I have seen extremely talented engineers not get their promo to this role because they were "too into coding." And I have advocated for one of them (w/o their knowledge), arguing the project wouldn't exist in it's current form without their technical contributions, and then witness the org retcon their judgment into a staff-level promotion without any significant change in duties.

Makes it hard to take too seriously, honestly. If the purpose of a system is what it does, then it's meant to be a miserly, inertial source of institutional status. One that can get you a lot more money, of course, so play the game as best you can without losing yourself in the process.

[the_af]

> then witness the org retcon their judgment into a staff-level promotion without any significant change in duties.

Isn't this good for the engineer, though? Presumably they are good at what they do because they like it. So they get a nice promotion and a raise without a change of duties, so everybody wins.

Why promote them out of their skill set, and possibly into a role they will hate and get them fired or willing to quit?

[ffsm8]

The value an individual provides to the company is - at best - correlated with their position in said company.

It it usually correlates even more with their ability to portrait themselves as capable.

Thankfully, there is significant overlap between these groups, but sadly not a full circle if visualized as a Venn diagram.

[mattgreenrocks]

Agree. I wouldn't say it's broken; the somewhat-overlapping Venn Diagram metaphor is apt. But like many other domains of power, there's a persistent belief that those who are recognized (promoted) are indeed the best candidates and that false negatives eventually correct themselves.

Believing otherwise is psychologically dangerous: if the system is somewhat arbitrary, then that opens up the possibility that their promotion was also somewhat arbitrary and not under their control.