Hacker News Reader

Comment by nogabebop23 | Hacker News Reader

to add another valid (yet totally invalid) point: You want an impressive job title. At an established company you're going to be a Software Developer or Engineer level n; at a startup you can easily be Lead, Director of or even a VP if that's important to you.

View on HN

That can be important, especially if you've been "under-titled" at your previous job and need to reset yourself on the career ladder. It's a lot easier to go from senior -> lead -> VP -> CTO by jumping into the startup world than it is to climb the ladder at a megacorp.

Sure but everyone knows the titles are inflated so it only matters if you plan to stay in startups perpetually. Megacorps won't pay any attention to your inflated title.

edit: And I've seen interviewers pause at such titles and comment "are you sure you want to work here, we can't offer you as nice of a title." So it may count against you even.

The title game is a funny one. I work at a small startup where I replaced the outgoing technical founder (who used the title CTO). I manage a small team and am responsible for all the of the tech at the company. I could choose any title that I want, but thus far I've stuck with "Lead Developer" because it seems to be a well defined role. Whereas titles like CTO or VP Engineering seem pretty meaningless outside of much larger companies.

Is there such thing as an impressive title, in software development, if the company is unheard-of?

This is a sector where people with no relevant formal education and three years on-the-job experience sometimes get called senior.

To be fair, "senior" doesn't seem to be particularly high up the ladder of job titles at tech companies these days. You get titles like "lead", "principle", and "staff", which are all considered more senior than senior.

At the end of the day, job titles are mostly for getting past recruiters. Interviewers (if they're any good) will judge you on your actual experience and capabilities.

It is interesting because people perceive titles as being inflated at start-ups compared to the "equivalent role" (using your example) at an established company, and that's partially true, but it's also not.

I'd say the extent of actual impact to business relative to the entirety of the business operations probably remains roughly the same between two people with the same title at a large company and a small company. However, the potential loss (or perhaps gain) suffered from poor (or great) decision-making is likely much smaller on an absolute scale at a start-up, although roughly the same on a relative scale.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com