One of the reasons I find your story relevant is that advice-pieces like the OP kind of assume a ton of factors are in place that are actually often largely out of your control. It kind of paints this clear career trajectory path for engineers when I think the real world is infinitely more chaotic and random.
For one thing, just the existence of titles like Staff Engineer seems to have exploded in the last 5 years or so, at least from my perspective. My first few jobs out of school, it seemed like the progression was Junior, quickly to just "Software Engineer", eventually to Senior, and then nowhere particular, maybe management. I guess everyone in the industry can't help but steal Google's structure so these new levels of Staff, Senior Staff, Principal seem to have grown in popularity, but I think it's a more recent idea than not. I'm glad that standardized IC tracks are growing but it's hardly a given and the first factor is that your company offers them in the first place.
Still, it's incredibly unstandardized. Having insight into both companies, I know a place like Twitter, Staff Engineer is handed out more lightly than a place like Google and can be more reflective of political prowess than engineering impact.
A dynamic I've seen over and over again is orgs expect more senior engineers to work on more senior stuff but inevitably there is a massive amount of work that's individually low impact but collectively high impact to be done. In a dream world you'd figure out ways to automate it but that's not always feasible. So often times there are political wars fought over access to high impact projects which are perceived as necessary for promotion, while core, critical work that's less sexy but critical to good product gets left undone. If you want to know why a lot of tech companies that pay engineers massive amounts can launch shiny new things with ease but struggle with the basics, look no further.
One of Google's approach to this problem is to create a massively complicated ladder system of engineers, where you have employees that would be labeled Software Engineers at any other company by nature of their job responsibilities, but at Google are called something else and are specifically boxed out of more desirable projects by nature of their non-SWE title. And of course the contractor vs full-time distinction exists as well.
Another dynamic that can happen is that you have huge engineering impact but your company's product strategy fails so its all for nought. You can impact your company's chance of success but ultimately a company works in a given industry on certain problems and if for whatever reason the company's big picture strategy fails then that has a high chance of undermining and overshadowing your individual impact.
Or you were born in the wrong country or run into major health issues that block access to high impact work.
Overall, I just find advice like "work on high impact stuff, don't snack" to be oversimplified to the point of pandering when, there's so many variables outside the scope of your control as to whether you'll even get access to the opportunity to do high impact work in the first place. And while, of course there's almost certainly a correlation between strong engineering IC career trajectory and skill, work ethic, and good career decisions, there's also undoubtedly a massive amount of all sorts of bias that make me skeptical of a cookbook on how to get there.
I think the origin of "Staff, Senior Staff, Principal" came from an attempt to create an IC track. You've been around a while, and you can execute stuff well on your own, where does your career go from there besides manager?
The fact that the assumption was manager is why we have a lot of these problems, tbh. I hate managers who hate managing but that's a separate discussion.
Also funnily enough I was just having a discussion how my company's career ladder explicitly says (in bold!) that promotion is not a reward. If it's not, what is it? What is the reward for hard work and growth, if it isn't that?
Ultimately what I see underlying this article and many like it is an assumption that, at least at an "enlightened" company, politics don't matter. If a company prioritizes low-impact high visibility, that's a stupid company... Yet I've never seen a company free of politics. There will never be a company where your personal assessment of impact of your work matters more than your boss's or their boss's.
We also can't pretend like the amount of work at any given level matches the number of engineers at that level (or who want to be at that level). It just never will. So there will be jockeying for position.
You shouldn't be playing politics all day (a trap I sometimes fall in) but you can't ignore it either. Politics often means justifying your work up the chain, being aware of priorities of those above you etc - it's not just kissing up. Ignore it at your peril.
I worked at a big telco (BT) and they had a super flat structure and a yearly/18 month promotion round that might have 20-25 slots for MPG1 to MPG2 in a division of 40-50k.
MPG1 and MPG2 where the IC grades after that that it was management grades.
You normally had around 18-100 pass the paper shift who then got a board interview.
I played the game and passed the paper shift several times but in the end left the company.
There are also pratical concerns. If you have a family, sticking to high-impact work will have high impact on the time you can devote to your family commitments (unless you are some sort of genius who solves everything before/within deadline). In that case you actually might desire a bunch of "snacking" with just a few high-impact thrown in.
>It kind of paints this clear career trajectory path for engineers when I think the real world is infinitely more chaotic and random.
Whenever I read an article like this I wonder if such a workplace exists, or does the author hope it exists and is writing for this ideal environment where tasks can be put into a 4-box of high/low impact/visibility. I realize the author somewhat addresses this with "Many companies conflate high-visibility and high-impact," but it feels more like the vast majority of companies where most people will work conflate the two.
As you said, the real world is a mess and a lot of people (me included) make the decision to optimize to what keeps them employed. This is especially true because (IME) at a lot of companies impact and visibility are things that can suddenly change. One day the task you're working on is going to save the world, and the next nobody cares anymore.
For one thing, just the existence of titles like Staff Engineer seems to have exploded in the last 5 years or so, at least from my perspective. My first few jobs out of school, it seemed like the progression was Junior, quickly to just "Software Engineer", eventually to Senior, and then nowhere particular, maybe management. I guess everyone in the industry can't help but steal Google's structure so these new levels of Staff, Senior Staff, Principal seem to have grown in popularity, but I think it's a more recent idea than not. I'm glad that standardized IC tracks are growing but it's hardly a given and the first factor is that your company offers them in the first place.
Still, it's incredibly unstandardized. Having insight into both companies, I know a place like Twitter, Staff Engineer is handed out more lightly than a place like Google and can be more reflective of political prowess than engineering impact.
A dynamic I've seen over and over again is orgs expect more senior engineers to work on more senior stuff but inevitably there is a massive amount of work that's individually low impact but collectively high impact to be done. In a dream world you'd figure out ways to automate it but that's not always feasible. So often times there are political wars fought over access to high impact projects which are perceived as necessary for promotion, while core, critical work that's less sexy but critical to good product gets left undone. If you want to know why a lot of tech companies that pay engineers massive amounts can launch shiny new things with ease but struggle with the basics, look no further.
One of Google's approach to this problem is to create a massively complicated ladder system of engineers, where you have employees that would be labeled Software Engineers at any other company by nature of their job responsibilities, but at Google are called something else and are specifically boxed out of more desirable projects by nature of their non-SWE title. And of course the contractor vs full-time distinction exists as well.
Another dynamic that can happen is that you have huge engineering impact but your company's product strategy fails so its all for nought. You can impact your company's chance of success but ultimately a company works in a given industry on certain problems and if for whatever reason the company's big picture strategy fails then that has a high chance of undermining and overshadowing your individual impact.
Or you were born in the wrong country or run into major health issues that block access to high impact work.
Overall, I just find advice like "work on high impact stuff, don't snack" to be oversimplified to the point of pandering when, there's so many variables outside the scope of your control as to whether you'll even get access to the opportunity to do high impact work in the first place. And while, of course there's almost certainly a correlation between strong engineering IC career trajectory and skill, work ethic, and good career decisions, there's also undoubtedly a massive amount of all sorts of bias that make me skeptical of a cookbook on how to get there.