Ask HN: Bloated engineering titles? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Bloated engineering titles?

19 pointsabhikhar25 comments

Why do we have this meaningless titles like engineer, senior engineer, lead engineer, manager etc. I think it restrict responsibilities and creativity of an individual and create unnecessary hierarchical structure. Higher level goal should to be work together and solve problems at ground level by putting your bloated title aside. Somehow the incentivization process in companies doesn't promote that behavior, rather it is more about showing your individual supremacy over others to get rewarded more. Would like to know if others feel same way ?

View on HN

Calling an engineer with 5 years experience "senior" isn't nearly as ridiculous as all of these kids calling themselves "CTO", "CEO", etc, of their 1-person unfunded webapp.

When I played X-Com, we had these different soldiers of different compositions. Everyone could do the same thing, fire a gun, be bait, throw a grenade, but some did some parts better than others. I ended up giving them names that reflect their roles, so that I'd be reminded where to put them.

I can imagine a company with three managers doing this - you'd have Project Manager Alice, Technical Manager Bob, Scrum Master Catherine. They might take the roles interchangeably, but it acts as a comment for senior management.

Most engineers and developers are happy to go with the title "Engineer" or "Developer", however a lot of other departments marketing, sales, HR could have inflated titles.

Managers, Directors, Vice presidents are very common even for people who have just graduated. Then you find yourself reporting to people who have only worked one job.

As it is most technical jobs saturate and you need to take the management track, with 15 years of experience reporting to someone with a lot less real world experience is not pretty.

A bit of devil’s advocate: 15 years of experience as an engineer could still be 0 years as a manager. So the person you’re reporting to might be a lot more experienced at their job than you are at their job.

Depends on the person. Some are born for their role. Some grow with experience. Some nothing helps.

Someone new might be easier to work with in someways compared to a manager who believes in their process over reality.

They aren't meaningless, in fact in most companies there is specific defined meanings to them, and in some companies the definitions include the culture that is expected to be promoted by that level (team work, etc).

It allows you to grow in your career, have clear expectations around role and responsibilities.

So, I disagree with you.

I was around when software "engineers" were called "coders". They were then called "developers". To me "engineer" is a bit of an aggrandisement of what is for most of us more akin to plumbing that it is to bridge building; but alas the world is replete with this sort of thing.

Most of us have to work quite hard to maintain a fragile sense of self. E.g. "I" the engineer, who is valuable and has a body of "knowledge". "I" who am "accomplished", "intelligent", "useful". Title, seniority and to a great degree even salary are artefacts of what we the people want.

I think over time the person who truly wants for transparency, meritocracy and flat structure is rare because obviously most devs aren't in the top 25%. Meanwhile, ambiguity, hierarchy, politics and other status quo preservers are much more reliable for the average.

The ageing dev; his complexes, aspirations and insecurities would be a marvellous book for someone to write; if it doesn't already exist.

In a utopia where all engineers have the career progression of a labourer that could work.

Companies pay extra for background and expertise. The title shows how much responsibility an engineer carries under his/her registration. If there are any project blunders, the senior engineer's license is on the line and other legal implications lower level engineers don't have to worry about.

Have you worked in a tech company where the engineer's have some sort of licensure? I haven't experienced that. I'm not doubting you just curious.

Nah, I'm a mech engg in the mining sector.

Yahoo! had the concept of 'technical yahoo'. Everybody had the same default title on the business card. But of course when it came to HR or pay grades there were still junior, senior, architect titles, and some people still chose to have 'director of abc' on the business card. I liked the default though.

My company made my official title “Blockchain Architect” despite my repeated written and verbal declarations that I don’t want the title as it doesn’t fit the work I do and frankly belittles the work I actually do.

Politics and antiquated org structures play a big part in determining someone’s job title.

Just for kicks: what is your preferred title?

Well isn’t it obvious:

Senior Lead Blockchain Architect Managing Director - Growth Team.

Followed by another position on the resume where he did Blockchain since he was 12 as the tech lead of a one person team. ( so you know, 13 years professional experience).

In between those two there’s a nice Blockchain bootcamp.

Below it all is the obvious Masters in Fine Arts from an Ivy League school.

Edit: I totally forgot to add something to the title: Senior Full Stack Lead Blockchain Architect Managing Director - Growth Team.

Totally forgot ‘full stack’, can’t ever forget that.

I agree that inside an atomic, small-ish, teams titles should be meaningless and skipped.

But in bigger companies there is actually some use to the title, when you look someone up in another team you want to know who are you talking to in advance. From my experience this is not something rare or esoteric an actual need.

Add to that the fact that somekind of leveling is usually needed, both for salary ranges and for promotions, so even if you skip the bloated title you'll still have someone's level.

There are usually two sides to this.. in some organizations, people really care about their own titles.

In other organizations, especially bigger ones, "Senior" and "Principal" and other kinds of add-ons to titles come with certain perks or responsibilities. For instance, if you're a "Senior" something at a big company I've worked at, you get a slightly bigger cube near the window/outer wall. This can only go to employees, not contractors, too.

The kind view on this is that it cuts down on disputes and disagreements on who gets what, and where, and why.

Another reason would be to justify differences in salaries. When some people are getting paid 30K more than some of their colleagues, a difference in title makes it somehow acceptable, or at least moves the debates to "should X be a senior" instead of "should X be paid that amount".

This is not ideal and should not be necessary, as in a perfect world pay bands should come from factual skills, performance and responsibility.

But I still find it better than having no title distinction while still having completely opaque salary gaps.

It has to do with job responsibilities and probably pay bands.

An engineer isn't likely to lose their job if they make a mistake, it's expected that junior people will make mistakes. Instead the people in senior roles will be held responsible for allowing it to happen. This may involve losing their job. Nobody really wants to lose their job and so they'll be quite firm in preventing that, you may be interpreting this as 'showing your individual supremacy over others'.

Generally, some decent engineering levels hierarchy makes sense. Where it gets super crazy, however, is the financial services industry, where many mid-level (and, sometimes, even lower-level) engineering titles, such as quantitative analyst and software developer, include a VP designation. It is IMO the ultimate title inflation and purely a lack of common sense.

1. The culture and processes should supersede the org chart. If that's not the case, go work somewhere better.

2. To some people levels matter for career growth and validation. Other people don't give two sh*ts. For all people looking to switch jobs (as we all inevitably do) the levels make a difference in recruiting, salary negotiations, etc.

Titles are often used by companies instead of pay raises. Gives you a good feeling but costs the company little.

- Emperor Sloaken - now thats a title.

Facebook doesn't have engineering titles for exactly this reason.

but they have levels, isn't it a different name on the same thing ?

Are you referring to actual engineers (civil, mechanical, etc) or software developers that call themselves engineers?

you know what he means you tit lol

Reply on news.ycombinator.com