How to approach titling for early engineering hires?

5 pointsthomasmost3y ago13 comments

I'm wondering if folks have any advice about titles for early software engineering roles. It's probably a 'more art than science' situation, but we're too far along to consider "Founding Engineer", but still so small that we aren't really able to attract "Principal Engineers" with 5-10 years of experience.

In other words, if I'm keen to make an offer to someone who might be a "Senior Software Engineer" at another company, is it bad form to attach the title "Staff Software Engineer" if I feel that's the better fit for her responsibilities/role at our size?

13 comments

gms3y ago

'Founding <whatever>' is silly title inflation. Ten years ago 'Founding Engineer' was just 'Software Engineer'.

More generally, I don't recommend fiddling with basic titles early. You don't know if your company will be alive in two years so there are more important things for everyone to focus on.

Just give everyone a title of 'Software Engineer'. Anyone who rejects you for that is likely someone who shouldn't join anyway.

nikanj3y ago

Founding <whatever> only makes sense if you're giving them a founder-sized slice of equity.

thomasmostOP3y ago

Good advice, thank you.

quietthrow3y ago

Beg to differ. Whether you like it or not the world does not operate on idealistic standards. Most people when hiring for certain higher levels are looking for (among other things) a steady growth trajectory in candidates and unfortunately titles are the only way to show that on linked in and resumes. When somebody is a principle engineer prior and moves to software engineer title it’s hard to parse this dip without the person being able to provide context. As such people who are career minded ambitious will likely have a problem with this and pass.to box everybody under software engineer might be great for the company but demonstrates one sided thinking. Lot of candidates are not ok with that.

quickthrower23y ago

I would just make the title as accurate as possible for your organisation. People who care too much about titles probably wont stick around too long! Salary and what the job entails are far more interesting.

That said if you find someone great and the title is the only sticking point maybe be flexible. It could be the reason they choose your company over a similar offer that is hard to choose.

danwee3y ago

No one cares about titles. Everyone cares about compensation. If your "staff role" is getting less than other's company "senior role", well, all things equal, you cannot compete.

I was a staff engineer in company A, and moved to company B in which I am "just" a senior engineer. My compensation is higher now. Everybody's happy.

dyeje3y ago

I’d probably avoid more titles than software engineer and senior software engineer until you have a proper leveling system with expectations for each title.

nodemaker3y ago

I think the only titles that make sense in a tech org are Software Engineer, Senior Software Engineer, Lead Software Engineer, Engineering Manager and CTO. Everything else is more noise than signal.

iamflimflam13y ago

I assume you are still happy to call yourselves “CEO”, “CTO” etc…

mr-pink3y ago

you really shouldn't use engineer at all. engineers are licensed by states.

logicalmonster3y ago

Legally speaking, that's true.

But software developers do something that can be described as engineering, and I don't think that terminology is going away anytime soon.

So what now? Does anybody really want a push for "software engineering" to be licensed by the state? I can think of a world of problems stemming from this.

throwaway6753093y ago

Seems to work all right for almost every other engineering path such as mechanical and electrical.

I think we could do with some state level accreditation, starting with a rigorous PE exam for computer science. It's not like it would prevent you from working as a dev, you just couldn't call yourself an engineer.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse