I say this because I host such a call with our marketing team. I know what's coming down the pipeline before any developer even hears about it. My boss also uses it as an opportunity to interject and remind marketing that they already are trying to push too many initiatives our way, so they have to push some back.
Keep titles, descriptions, projected development start dates, and projected release dates, and a column for all status updates (date them, and put a name to the last status).
At least for me, in hindsight, a lot of that was just in my head. It's fine once you earn the level to not always operate at it. Just as long as when that's needed again you are able to step up.
In my experience as a pre-staff – it is your job to create the green light. You’re director level, there is no-one to say “make it so”. You’re the one who’s supposed to do that.
Org-wide stuff not happening? Guess what, you have to go figure out how to make it happen. Even if that means getting buddy buddy with some of the other directors and building informal networks within the company. That’s the job. Making things happen. Poking the right person at the right time, cashing in favors, building a rapport, etc.
And yes, sometimes pulling a VP into a meeting and asking “hey can you pull a string”
You might be able to help with those politics but it's probably also not your job to do that. That's partly why actual engineering and product managers are on-staff to focus on things like that.
If the principal engineer doesn’t champion technical issues created by org design, then who?
I sense that we have different experiences and so can't relate to each other's points without getting more specific so I will make this my last reply.
I will just say that a common trope I've seen in online discourse on this subject is basically that you aren't a real <verySeniorIC> unless you are effectively doing the job of (or heavily carrying) your peers in the org chart who explicitly hold management roles. I broke my own back, metaphorically, trying to live up to that ideal with nothing to show for it and at the expense of the output that was expected of me and so I reject that notion. The <verySeniorIC>s Ive seen who hold those titles with longevity aggressively delegate politics to management and focus on the tech.
The org wide work but not org wide alignment rings very true and it occupies much of my free work time trying to solve.
That seems extremely high in my personal experience, which is that Principal Engineer corresponds to Manager on the management side.
> I'm expected to impact org-wide culture, policy, technology direction, strategy, etc...
Also in my experience this sounds more like Technical Director level as that really having input into directing the org.
An issue is that as an org grows it tends to create more titles in order to cater for egos and the pecking order among people who may have been there for a long time. So you have Junior Engineer, Engineer, Senior Engineer, Principal Engineer, Senior Principal/Associate Director, Director, Senior Director... In which case Principal Engineer certainly isn't on same level as Director on management side.
Level - SWE ladder - Eng Manager ladder
L8 - Principal software engineer - Director
L9 - Distinguished software engineer - Senior directorThe principle remains, though, that titles multiply to make people feel good in the pecking order.
That’s pure HR talk and is indicative of where you might stand compensation wise. It doesn’t really give you equal standing in the company. It’s not a question of title. It’s the reality of what you can do.
If you think about it, it entirely makes sense. Directors leverage their team to achieve results. You only have yourself and the example you can set.
In theory, we aligned the ladders in a manner that Principal sits parallel to Directors in the management track. I'm expected to impact org-wide culture, policy, technology direction, strategy, etc... but so rarely am I allowed into the rooms where decisions are being made, let alone discussed. I don't know (at all) what is being discussed, and by the time I find out about it things are set in stone.
I do what I can with mentoring and team culture, and lead by example for code-related things, but that is all very zoomed in and tactical. We've been told explicitly that we're holding off on having people write technical strategy/vision until we have organization-wide direction from those in upper Leadership. That has been the promise for a long time, but for one reason or another keeps failing to materialize.
At this point, upper Leadership won't even meet with someone of my rank/position, as they only respect others with VP to C-level titles to work with.
This is the type of reality I fear encountering at other organizations. I worry that despite the allure of Principal title, the reality is that too often such things happen and that when it comes down to it, VPs and C-levels only respect similar, and want Principals or Distinguished Engineers simply as "advanced fixers" for problems in a short time.