> To achieve the “org-level” impact, principal engineers need to be very selective on what to work on and use as much leverage as they can. For example, to set them up for success and maximize their influence, a principal engineer usually directly reports to a “director-level” engineering leader.

Whoa, that is a cynical take and smells a little of sour grapes.

I 100% agree that the PE title is abused both out of nepotism, and out of site-wide populism, but the intent is relatively pure, at least at large companies where the title actually matters:

There are some engineers that are so good at solving problems that they can be dropped into any crisis situation and help fix it, like a special forces soldier. After 30+ years in engineering I've seen them in action, and most of the time they deserve the title. They are just that good. Those are your PEs.

However, you need a large enough sample population to produce PEs because it is based on relative performance. It is harder to identify one in a group of 10, but in a division of 1000 it becomes abundantly clear.

Typically how you become a PE is by waiting in line and keeping at what you do, because usually there are only so many PE's promoted per year to help mitigate abuse of the system (there will be some in bigger organizations). This idea of being selective is ... misguided. You don't really have a choice.

Now combine those last two paragraphs and I can see how it appears there is room for gaming the system by only picking cherry products. However, it is unlikely you would be able to say to a VP or GM, "Hey, I want to work on THAT project, not this crap one you stuck me on, because I want more visibility for promotion!" Maybe that'll work, but good luck?