---
title: staff eng archetypes
permalink: staff-eng-archetypes
date: 2022-01-24T21:35:13-08:00
tags: management
---

As I write this it's performance reviews season at my company, which means
renewed interest in the expectations of engineers of each _level_. My role is to
help define this for our front-end engineers and ensure fair outcomes. A common
question I hear throughout this process is: _what is a staff engineer?_

My company, like many in the tech industry, defines a progression of [levels]
for engineers[^and-designers]. Others may use a set of titles, these are often
interchangeable. To grossly simplify:

| Level                                                         | Scope                                                                                                                                            |
| ------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| <span style="white-space: pre">Junior Eng</span>              | First few years in industry. Expected to learn quickly, complete assigned small projects with little guidance, and continue to grow.             |
| <span style="white-space: pre">Mid-level Eng</span>           | 2-6 years in industry. Completes moderate projects with autonomy and contributes to the team in other ways.                                      |
| <span style="white-space: pre">Senior Eng</span>              | 5 or more years experience. Accountable for large projects requiring a team and external stakeholders. Mentors and improves their team.          |
| <span style="white-space: pre">Staff+ Eng[^staff-plus]</span> | Typically over 10 years experience. Peer to managers, accountable for their team's roadmap and technical vision. Then... things get complicated. |

[^and-designers]:
    Designers often have a very similar career progression. You can generally
    replace "engineer" with "designer" throughout this entire post. A fantastic
    comparable resource for designers is [staff.design](https://staff.design).

[^staff-plus]:
    Some companies define titles beyond Staff Eng, like "Senior Staff Eng",
    "Principle Eng", "Distinguished Eng", "Architect", or "Technical Fellow".
    What I share here is also true for these engineers, just further into the
    limit. These are often collectively referred to as "Staff+ Eng".

Most companies provide expectations guidelines alongside these levels, often
breaking things down by technical skills, soft skills, leadership, etc. These
can be helpful tools for both engineers and managers to guide them in their
career, but I've found this often breaks down at the Staff Eng level, for a few
reasons:

- There just aren't that many Staff+ Eng to compare and generalize. Most
  organizations will have less than 1 in 10 engineers at this level.

- Every one of these engineers is a different person, who found a unique impact
  relative to what was needed and what they're good at. No two Staff+ Eng follow
  exactly the same path.

- The gamut of potential impact is so diverse that what is central to one Staff
  Engineer's impact may be near absent from another's. It can be hard to even
  define base expectations.

A different approach is necessary. Rather than defining one set of expectations,
describe [Staff Eng Archetypes]<wbr/>[^staffeng.com]. Archetypes (or Personas)
are a concept borrowed from literature, psychology and UX design, with the goal
of simultaneously describing the diversity of the role by breaking it into
smaller groups, while also generalizing within each group. The staffeng.com
article describes four of these archetypes:

[^staffeng.com]:
    One of many fantastic resources from [staffeng.com](https://staffeng.com/)!

- The **Tech Lead** guides the technical execution of their team via day to day
  leadership. The most common Staff Eng archetype and a natural extension of the
  expectations of a Senior Eng. This is such a common path to management that
  there's a term "TLM" for the variant which also takes on some people
  management, furthering their autonomy.
- The **Architect** sets the vision for a domain, and is accountable for its
  success, often requiring many teams working together. This may be a purely
  technical vision or, more often for a front-end engineer, a product vision.
- The **Solver** goes deep to solve problems no one else can. Not purely
  technical, really tough problems are often equal part organizational and
  require excellent communication skills and "bedside manner".
- The **Right Hand** extends a leader's bandwidth by helping to operate a
  complex organization, converting inefficiencies into well run programs. They
  bounce between whatever is most urgent be it tech, people, process, or
  business.

If these all sound really different from each other, that's the idea! There are
just as many ways to becoming a Staff Eng as there are engineers with that
title. I love that these four archetypes each highlight a very different core
competency: tactical leadership, vision setting, technical excellence, and
organized execution. It wouldn't be possible to define base expectations across
these for all Staff Eng.

I also appreciate that using archetypes is still flawed. Not everyone will fit
into these four buckets, some may bridge between multiple, others will define
their own path. For those with aspirations to become a Staff Eng and those that
manage them, my advice is to not emulate others but find and lean into your own
strengths.

[levels]: https://www.levels.fyi/
[staff eng archetypes]: https://staffeng.com/guides/staff-archetypes