PDF Summary:Staff Engineer, by Will Larson

In Staff Engineer, Will Larson explores the diverse roles and responsibilities of engineers who have progressed beyond the senior level. Although the "staff engineer" title encompasses various archetypes—including tech leads, architects, problem solvers, and executive advisors—the common thread is an expansion into strategic guidance, mentorship, and organization-wide influence.

Larson examines the transition from tactical coding work to these staff roles, as well as tactics for reaching the staff level, whether through internal growth or joining a new company. He provides insights into the unique challenges staff engineers encounter, such as adapting to ambiguous projects, wielding influence effectively, and measuring success in less quantifiable terms.

(continued)...

The responsibilities and designation of a staff engineer may vary significantly across different organizations, each with its distinct set of roles and anticipations.

Larson's observations, based on discussions with engineers from diverse backgrounds who have reached or surpassed the Staff position in several technology firms, highlight the considerable differences in the roles of Staff Engineers across different companies. Companies frequently customize these positions to align with their unique cultural background, the maturity level of their tech and product teams, and the requirements of their current business structure. Understanding the specific responsibilities and expectations associated with a Staff Engineer position is essential to assess whether a company's view of technical leadership aligns with your abilities and aspirations.

Other Perspectives

• In many industries, professional titles and roles, including that of a staff engineer, are becoming more standardized to facilitate clearer career progression and expectations.
• There's a risk that emphasizing alignment with a company's cultural background could inadvertently exclude or marginalize candidates from diverse backgrounds who might bring valuable new perspectives and approaches to the role.
• The perceived differences in roles could be a result of different terminologies used across organizations rather than actual discrepancies in job functions, implying that the roles are similar but described differently.
• It suggests that the onus is on the individual to assess alignment, which may neglect the responsibility of the organization to clearly communicate expectations and provide the necessary support for staff engineers to succeed.

The typical duties and responsibilities linked to the position of a staff engineer.

Attaining the Staff Engineer position signifies a major shift from the initial phases of a developer's professional growth. In the initial phase of your professional journey, the focus may have been on developing complex and impactful code, but as you rise to the position of a Staff Engineer, your responsibilities broaden to include steering the team's shared goals, formulating sustainable strategies, and creating a durable influence on the company that goes beyond your personal work.

Senior technical staff members focus on setting strategic technological guidance, fostering the growth of their peers, and exerting considerable sway within the company, rather than concentrating on hands-on programming tasks.

Larson posits that the transition from Senior Engineer to Staff Engineer isn't about doing the same things better but instead involves moving into a different set of activities. Upon reaching the Staff Engineer level, individuals often dedicate a greater portion of their time to duties that extend beyond coding, leading to a reduced involvement in the direct development of software.

They focus on advocating for technological progress and leading the overhaul of the organization's core infrastructure.

Experienced technical professionals often encounter intricate challenges, devise appropriate strategies, and subsequently implement the necessary solutions. They primarily focus their efforts on carrying out tasks and enhancing processes. Staff engineers not only identify essential transitions in technology that must take place but also recognize that the actual programming often represents just a minor portion of the total endeavor. Staff-level engineers dedicate significant time to advocating for enhancements within the organization, ensuring they have support and consensus before implementing these changes. The importance of their position is highlighted by their encouragement of technological progress that requires collaboration among different teams and is planned over timeframes that surpass the typical duration of project cycles.

Other Perspectives

• The statement implies a linear process of encountering challenges, devising strategies, and implementing solutions, but in practice, this process can be iterative, with strategies and implementations being revisited and revised multiple times.
• This focus might inadvertently prioritize incremental improvements over more significant, transformative changes that could lead to greater long-term benefits.
• The assertion might overlook the reality that for certain projects, especially those involving cutting-edge technologies or complex algorithm development, programming can indeed be the major portion of the endeavor.
• In some cases, seeking consensus can lead to decision paralysis, where no action is taken due to the inability to please all stakeholders.
• Encouraging technological progress is important, but it should be balanced with considerations of its potential impacts on the workforce, such as job displacement, the need for retraining, and the cultural changes that accompany new technologies.
• Some technological advancements are incremental and can be implemented within typical project cycles, without the need for extended timeframes.

They nurture the development of their peers by offering guidance and creating pathways for new opportunities.

Experienced engineers broaden their expertise and amplify their influence through involvement in increasingly complex and significant projects. Staff engineers progress and develop by engaging in projects and also by offering mentorship and support to their engineering peers. This might entail providing personalized mentorship to an engineer, sharing expertise while assessing their programming tasks, or furnishing in-depth counsel about their career progression. Assigning tasks to team members in a way that leverages their distinct skills and provides them with projects that offer a good mix of challenge and scope can foster skill development.

Other Perspectives

• The statement assumes that complexity equates to valuable learning experiences, but this is not always the case; sometimes, working on simpler projects can provide opportunities to refine fundamental skills or explore new areas of knowledge.
• The focus on significant projects might create a culture where routine but critical maintenance work is undervalued, potentially leading to burnout among those who maintain systems rather than innovate.
• Offering mentorship and support does not automatically lead to development for the mentor; it depends on the quality of the mentorship and the mentor's ability to reflect on and learn from the experience.
• Not all engineers may benefit equally from personalized mentorship; some may prefer or benefit more from self-directed learning or more structured training programs.
• The effectiveness of sharing expertise is highly dependent on the communication skills of the person providing the guidance; poor communication can lead to misunderstandings and impede learning.
• In-depth counsel can sometimes be biased by the mentor's own experiences and perspectives, which may not be applicable to the mentee's unique situation or the diverse challenges they face.
• It might lead to a lack of innovation, as people are often most creative when they step outside their areas of expertise and are forced to look at problems from a new perspective.
• There is a risk that focusing too much on challenge and scope could lead to a neglect of foundational skills that are better honed through repetitive practice and mastery of routine tasks.

They continue to be aware of the organization's technological well-being and challenges, even while their programming responsibilities decrease.

Staff engineers typically concentrate on high-level strategic matters with enduring impacts and tend to participate less in day-to-day activities such as writing code and scrutinizing it, which might lead to a reduced awareness of the everyday challenges encountered by engineers. Larson advises proactively engaging in measures to solicit input and foster wider conversations about the obstacles faced by the organization.

Other Perspectives

• High-level strategic work, while important, may not always have the most immediate or visible impact on an organization's success, and the contributions of those writing and reviewing code daily should not be undervalued.
• Staff engineers might actually become more aware of systemic issues and challenges that affect the engineering team as a whole, rather than getting too focused on the minutiae of daily coding challenges.
• Soliciting input from the entire organization might result in an overwhelming amount of feedback, making it difficult to prioritize and address the most significant issues effectively.

Staff engineers engage in a diverse array of tasks each day, with their specific responsibilities ranging widely depending on their distinct positions, such as providing technical guidance, crafting system architecture, solving complex problems, or acting as dependable deputies, with each function carrying its own set of duties and assignments.

Larson delineates the distinct responsibilities and roles associated with each archetype in the field of Staff engineering. Tech Leads typically concentrate on a single team, striving to remove obstacles that could impede the project while aligning the team's technological strategies with the broader goals of the company. Architects frequently collaborate with those at the helm of the organization to advocate for their preferred methods, concentrating their efforts on a specific technological domain that encompasses multiple teams. Solvers are often embedded on a specific project or problem and spend time jumping in to solve it directly, whereas Right Hands tend to be high-level, working closely with an executive to extend that leader's influence.

Other Perspectives

• The variety of tasks might not be daily; some staff engineers may engage in long-term projects that require a focus on a specific set of tasks over an extended period.
• The statement doesn't account for the fact that some staff engineers might choose to specialize in a particular area, thus narrowing their range of responsibilities rather than expanding it.
• Removing obstacles is not solely the responsibility of a Tech Lead; it often requires collaboration with other roles, such as project managers, product owners, and other engineers.
• Advocating for preferred methods can sometimes lead to a narrow focus, potentially overlooking alternative or emerging technologies that could be more beneficial.
• Assigning solvers to specific problems can sometimes create bottlenecks, especially if the solver becomes a single point of failure or is spread too thin across multiple issues.
• In certain organizations, Right Hands might act as a check and balance on executive power, ensuring that decisions are made in the best interest of the company and its stakeholders, rather than simply amplifying executive influence.

Strategies for achieving the role of a staff engineer.

Larson reveals the essential strategies that engineers with Staff-plus experience consistently depend on to maintain their roles. Numerous companies do not have a well-defined path to attain the rank of a Staff-plus engineer; however, there exist reliable strategies that can greatly improve your likelihood of achieving this status.

Attaining a position at the staff level within the same organization requires the development of an extensive portfolio.

In numerous organizations, the criteria to achieve and demonstrate the requisite skills for a Staff Engineer role often go unstated or are implicitly understood. Progressing beyond a particular rank, often identified as that of a Senior Engineer, within these organizations can be an exceptionally challenging accomplishment and is viewed as a significant career development marker. To overcome these challenges, Larson recommends keeping an evolving log of your past accomplishments and initiatives, which acts as a benchmark while you deliberately progress in accordance with the predefined standards for advancement.

The document should encapsulate the engineer's historical accomplishments, demonstrated leadership qualities, and prospective capabilities.

The author highlights the importance of starting to compile one's impact, accomplishments, spearheaded initiatives, and leadership examples into a single document as an initial step in the progression process. You should make it a habit to review the document with your immediate supervisor and, when possible, with other key individuals in your organization who are well-versed in the roles and expectations of Staff Engineers at your workplace. You will apply what you've learned to guide your career development and identify any gaps in your skills or visibility that may become apparent during a formal promotion review or when your qualifications are assessed for a new position.

Context

• Regularly updating this document ensures that your accomplishments are recorded accurately and consistently, reducing the risk of forgetting important details over time.
• Regular discussions with influential figures in your organization can increase your visibility and help build a network of advocates who can support your career progression.
• This refers to how well your contributions and potential are recognized by others in your organization. Increasing visibility can involve taking on high-impact projects, presenting at meetings, or contributing to company-wide initiatives, which can help in being considered for promotions or new opportunities.
• When applying for new roles, especially those with greater responsibility, the document can highlight relevant experiences and skills, making the candidate more competitive.

It is essential to seek feedback on the packet from both managers and peers.

The author suggests that your promotion packet shouldn't be a solo activity, but instead, it should be used as a framework for a frequent, low-stakes discussion with your manager where the focus is identifying the work that got you to your current level and what needs to happen for you to gain the Staff title and role at your current company.

Context

• Feedback helps you build a compelling case by ensuring that your packet clearly communicates your impact and potential to decision-makers.
• Feedback from peers can serve as validation of your skills and achievements, offering a broader view beyond managerial assessments.
• Collaborative input can help identify any gaps in experience or skills that need to be addressed before a promotion is feasible.
• Managers can provide insights into organizational goals and how your work aligns with them, which is crucial for a successful promotion.
• Understanding how your past work fits within the company’s broader objectives can help tailor your future contributions to meet strategic needs.
• Understanding and meeting the performance metrics or criteria that the company uses to evaluate readiness for the Staff role is important.

Exploring roles at various companies might also be a practical option for those who cannot achieve advancement to a staff position within their current organization.

Many engineers who have reached the Staff level or above have acknowledged the significance of their present title in facilitating transitions between companies, particularly when their first company did not provide such titles at the time of their hiring and had no defined pathway for internal advancement to these positions.

Organizations often rely on staff engineers to meet specific needs, which in turn provides a variety of opportunities.

Organizations frequently seek to hire individuals with advanced proficiency equivalent to or surpassing the Staff level to tackle distinct obstacles or meet certain needs within their operations. Participating in the implementation of leadership's strategic vision by developing approaches for application programming interfaces, establishing a new department dedicated to tech innovation, or providing advice on technical issues. Whatever those needs end up being at a given company, when they are known, you're likely to get access to work at the appropriate level of impact, and the interview process will be more aligned with identifying the underlying skills required to operate at that higher level of impact.

Other Perspectives

• In some cases, the specific needs of an organization may be better met through the adoption of new technologies or automation, rather than the traditional approach of relying on staff engineers.
• In some organizations, the role of developing API strategies may be designated to specialized API engineers or teams, rather than general staff engineers.
• In some organizations, the decision to establish a new department may come from executive-level management or a board of directors rather than from staff engineers.
• In some cases, external consultants or industry experts might provide more objective or specialized advice on technical issues than in-house staff engineers.
• The interview process may not always accurately identify the skills required for higher impact roles due to biases or ineffective interviewing techniques.

Finding a role and organization that align with one's skills and enthusiasm is essential.

When examining different companies, Larson emphasizes the importance of determining whether a particular organization will support the journey towards achieving a Staff-level role. Focus on the organizational influence exerted by Staff Engineers rather than their designated titles. Examine the company's culture in depth to assess if its principles, methods, and management support the kind of Staff engineering roles that ignite your passion and contribute to your achievement. Identify the types of staff roles that would be most advantageous to you and pursue employment with organizations that hold those specific positions in high regard.

Context

• When employees are passionate about their work, they are more likely to be innovative and creative, bringing new ideas and solutions to the table.
• Assess whether the company encourages innovation and technical leadership, which are often key components of Staff Engineer responsibilities.
• Companies might have practices like regular technical reviews, open forums for innovation, and recognition programs for engineering achievements.
• Understanding the hierarchy and how decisions are made can help you determine if you will have the autonomy and influence you desire in your role. This structure can affect your ability to implement ideas and drive change.
• Organizations that value Staff roles often have strong networks and mentorship programs, which can be crucial for professional growth and success in these positions.

Building a strong reputation, gaining confidence, and creating a network of relationships throughout the company are crucial steps for advancing to a staff-level role.

In companies where the trajectory for advancing one's career is unclear or lacks clear definition past a specific level, assessments tend to be influenced more by personal reputation and subjective views rather than by systematic appraisals that take into account an individual's past achievements and potential for future success. Securing a position at the Staff-plus tier requires the support and agreement of existing leadership in your organization, given that these roles are inherently connected to leadership capabilities. Larson suggests that to increase one's visibility within the company, it is beneficial to create and disseminate in-depth technical reports or strategic outlines, present at all-hands meetings or gatherings focused on engineering, and provide expertise and assistance in areas that are vital to the company's success.

Engaging in open discussions about tech topics can elevate a person's reputation beyond the boundaries of their respective organizations.

Participation in wider engineering dialogues, in conjunction with fostering internal visibility, can also be beneficial for some engineers' career advancement. By participating in events like leading a workshop, authoring a publication, or making contributions to open-source initiatives, you enhance your profile and expand your circle of prospective collaborators. To accelerate your progress toward a role on par with Staff-level in your present company, Larson suggests increasing your visibility and sway internally; on the other hand, if you're aiming to switch to a different position or company, it's advantageous to build a wider recognition across the sector.

Other Perspectives

• Elevating one's reputation through open discussions assumes that the audience recognizes and values the contributions, which may not always be the case.
• Some organizations may value depth of knowledge and expertise over breadth, thus prioritizing deep work over external engagement.
• For remote workers or those in large, dispersed organizations, achieving internal visibility can be particularly challenging and may not be the most effective strategy for career advancement.
• In some fields or organizations, these activities may not be valued as highly as other achievements, such as direct business impact or proprietary innovation.
• Wider recognition can create a perception of being overqualified or too expensive for some positions, which might deter potential employers from considering an individual for a role.

When assessing the duties associated with the role of a staff engineer, numerous elements must be considered.

Progressing to a role at the Staff-plus level often involves overcoming challenges and adapting to new responsibilities and environments. The character of one's work often changes markedly, particularly when moving from the quick feedback cycles of coding to the less predictable domain of ongoing guidance in technical matters. Managers often find it difficult to foster growth and progress in engineers at the Staff-plus level due to a unique set of responsibilities that distinguishes them from less experienced engineering positions.

Attaining the position of staff engineer requires a shift in viewpoint and responsibilities from earlier roles.

Once individuals achieve the staff engineer level, they frequently find that the duties that contributed to their promotion to their first Staff-plus role are quite distinct from what is expected of them once they have the title.

Becoming accustomed to receiving feedback less often and to the more ambiguous nature of the assignments is often a challenge.

Engineers frequently focus on the instant gratification that comes from engaging in the repetitive process of writing, evaluating, and running code within a REPL environment. Engineers holding positions at or above staff level frequently initiate endeavors designed to yield results and understanding over an extended period. Individuals used to rapid and tangible results may find themselves unexpectedly discouraged by the shift in circumstances. The impact of your ongoing guidance and support efforts might not be evident for a year. Forging consensus on a proposed technical strategy could require several years. Working alongside colleagues is frequently essential for devising creative strategies that sustain enthusiasm amidst these transitions.

Other Perspectives

• Some engineers might find the process of writing, evaluating, and running code to be gratifying in itself, regardless of the immediacy of the results.
• The difficulty of adjusting to less frequent feedback and more ambiguous assignments can vary greatly depending on the individual's previous experiences and personal preferences.
• In certain dynamic industries, waiting a year to see the results of guidance and support might be too long, as the environment can change rapidly, rendering the advice outdated or irrelevant.
• The time frame for reaching consensus may vary greatly depending on the complexity of the project, the size of the team, and the organizational culture, suggesting that several years is not a fixed rule.
• Some individuals may find that solitude and time for individual reflection are more effective for maintaining their enthusiasm during transitions than collaboration.

Staff engineers are anticipated to excel in guiding others and wielding influence without the need for official authority.

Assuming the position of a staff engineer inherently involves taking on leadership responsibilities. The distinction between leadership roles and engineering management lies in the ability to shape and guide others through one's own behavior and persuasive power, rather than relying on formal power and structural command. To excel in their positions, staff engineers need to skillfully influence and collaborate with people outside of their immediate team, as highlighted by Larson.

Other Perspectives

• The term "leadership responsibilities" can be subjective and vary widely in interpretation; what constitutes leadership in one company might be considered regular collaboration or mentorship in another.
• The effectiveness of leadership through influence without authority can be limited in situations where formal power structures are strong and deeply embedded within an organization's culture.
• The emphasis on skillful influence could inadvertently promote a culture where political maneuvering is valued over technical contributions, which may not align with the goals or values of all engineering organizations.

Mentoring staff engineers requires a different approach than managing those with less experience.

Upon advancing past the initial stages of their careers, managers frequently find it challenging to supervise the ongoing development of individuals who excel as specialized contributors and are beyond the basic professional level, instead of following a path toward leadership positions: what are the expected benchmarks? How can one provide feedback in a manner that is beneficial and constructive? What constitutes a successful outcome?

The position entails providing enhanced guidance and assistance to staff engineers instead of overseeing their routine activities.

Larson recommends shifting from direct management to providing overarching guidance to your seasoned engineering team. Allow them to exercise their discretion. Provide them with the necessary background and your objectives, which will allow them to manage their tasks and timelines effectively. Give them the leeway to approach challenges in a way that you might not have, and then offer your feedback on why their approach worked or didn't.

Other Perspectives

• The strategy might inadvertently create a disconnect between management and the engineering team if not implemented with careful communication and regular check-ins.
• Direct management allows for immediate feedback and correction of issues, which might be delayed when only overarching guidance is provided.
• Allowing too much discretion can result in a lack of standardization across projects, leading to inconsistencies in the quality and efficiency of work.
• In some regulated industries, deviating from prescribed methods could lead to compliance issues or legal risks.
• Depending on the delivery, feedback can be perceived as micromanagement, which could undermine the initial intent of empowering engineers to exercise their discretion.

The book provides guidance to staff engineers on how to redefine their success criteria beyond just their individual contributions.

At the beginning of a career in engineering, swift progression is often driven by direct and unmistakable responses from peers and superiors, as well as direction from product managers. Functioning effectively in a role beyond the staff level often means shifting focus from personal achievements to guiding and bolstering the team's collective endeavors. What methods can your Staff engineers employ to gauge their success while adjusting to the revised standards for assessing their input in their new roles?

Context

• They are often involved in setting technical direction and vision for projects, requiring a deep understanding of both current technologies and future trends.
• Early career stages typically have clear pathways for advancement, with specific technical skills and project completions serving as benchmarks for progression.
• The focus shifts to creating sustainable systems and processes that will have a lasting impact, rather than short-term wins or individual accomplishments.
• Traditional metrics like lines of code or individual project completions are less relevant. Instead, success might be measured by the overall improvement in team performance, project outcomes, and the adoption of best practices they advocate.