[00:01] (1.04s)
we're here to talk about the journey to
[00:03] (3.36s)
becoming a staff engineer in a large C
[00:05] (5.88s)
company and so we'll go through our
[00:07] (7.60s)
intros and talk about which companies we
[00:09] (9.52s)
have experience in in just a minute but
[00:11] (11.24s)
just to give some context I wanted to
[00:13] (13.76s)
quickly share this diagram from levels
[00:16] (16.20s)
FYI what does it mean to be a staff
[00:17] (17.88s)
engineer staff engineer is a very senior
[00:20] (20.04s)
level at these tech companies so
[00:22] (22.12s)
typically you get to a senior level
[00:24] (24.36s)
that's a terminal level of being an
[00:26] (26.88s)
individual contributor an IC engineer
[00:29] (29.12s)
and so that's what you can look at here
[00:30] (30.68s)
which is senior s L5 at Google E5 at
[00:33] (33.12s)
Facebook S3 at Amazon the level after
[00:36] (36.80s)
that is typically what we're referring
[00:38] (38.28s)
to when we talk about staff engineering
[00:40] (40.16s)
so staff s at Google is L6 E6 at
[00:43] (43.44s)
Facebook at Amazon interestingly there's
[00:45] (45.76s)
no notion there's no vocabulary for a
[00:48] (48.16s)
staff engineer the level after senior is
[00:50] (50.92s)
principal so keep that in mind we're
[00:52] (52.56s)
going to we talk about this from the
[00:54] (54.04s)
perspective of Staff engineer but the
[00:55] (55.96s)
vocabulary does differ based off of what
[00:58] (58.16s)
company you're at but generally the idea
[01:00] (60.60s)
of staff is that you have influence and
[01:02] (62.48s)
scope across multiple teams and perhaps
[01:05] (65.24s)
even companywide so it is a very
[01:07] (67.48s)
challenging level to perform at and I
[01:09] (69.56s)
think it'll be really valuable to hear
[01:10] (70.80s)
from everyone here about how they
[01:12] (72.60s)
achieve that and you know what advice
[01:14] (74.44s)
they would have for everyone here so to
[01:16] (76.84s)
kick off the intros do anyone want to
[01:18] (78.80s)
start maybe Lee do you want to kick us
[01:20] (80.72s)
off so I'm Lee mck I have been working
[01:24] (84.32s)
in some capacity in software engineering
[01:26] (86.80s)
since 2004 that's when I finished an
[01:29] (89.00s)
undergraduate degree so worked at some
[01:32] (92.12s)
smaller companies for a while did
[01:34] (94.04s)
Healthcare informatics did nonprofit
[01:36] (96.60s)
fundraising stuff and then starting in
[01:39] (99.08s)
2012 worked at Amazon worked as an sd2
[01:42] (102.28s)
there for a lot of the time moved into
[01:44] (104.52s)
people management got promoted L6 which
[01:46] (106.92s)
is equivalent to senior engineer as a
[01:49] (109.68s)
manager and then a couple of years ago
[01:52] (112.52s)
left Amazon joined it was then Facebook
[01:55] (115.16s)
became meta while I was there as an L6
[01:57] (117.92s)
engineer staff they don't like things
[02:00] (120.44s)
but same as staff level elsewhere didn't
[02:02] (122.92s)
have a super fun time didn't go great so
[02:06] (126.20s)
about a year and a half ago I moved over
[02:08] (128.32s)
to Google in the same capacity working
[02:10] (130.12s)
as an IC as a staff engineer um I've
[02:12] (132.92s)
worked on the chat product and now I'm
[02:14] (134.40s)
over on Gmail working on notifications
[02:16] (136.88s)
I'm sure we'll give this General
[02:18] (138.52s)
disclaimer but I'm not speaking on
[02:20] (140.00s)
behalf of Google no one is speaking on
[02:21] (141.80s)
behalf of their employers so my name is
[02:23] (143.68s)
Ryan Peterman I'm a Staff engineer at
[02:27] (147.72s)
meta and my prior experience is that I
[02:31] (151.32s)
graduated from utila in 2017 I worked in
[02:34] (154.96s)
a small satellite office at Amazon for
[02:38] (158.36s)
around eight months or so and then I
[02:40] (160.08s)
started I've met a at the new grad level
[02:43] (163.00s)
and since then I got promoted to staff
[02:45] (165.68s)
and a few years and I'm still at meta
[02:49] (169.40s)
right now working on the Instagram
[02:51] (171.60s)
product I'm just gonna Note new College
[02:54] (174.52s)
hire is L3 there so that is three
[02:57] (177.88s)
promotions in five years so just pretty
[03:01] (181.32s)
significant anyway Ryan you pick next
[03:05] (185.48s)
awesome yeah that's exactly right all
[03:07] (187.40s)
three or ic3 or E3 for the newr level
[03:11] (191.12s)
I'll pass it to Kari hey thanks Ken hey
[03:14] (194.88s)
everyone my name is Carly I currently
[03:16] (196.96s)
work at Activision same thing as Le I'm
[03:19] (199.20s)
speaking on behalf of Activision but I
[03:21] (201.20s)
am currently a senior manager but I also
[03:24] (204.52s)
still hold an IC title which is a fun
[03:27] (207.28s)
time so I do both my IC title is
[03:29] (209.88s)
equivalent to staff we call it like lead
[03:32] (212.20s)
engineer yeah I guess I graduated I
[03:34] (214.60s)
finished grad school in 2017 moved up
[03:37] (217.24s)
from Junior data scientist fairly
[03:41] (221.24s)
quickly started at Activision at the
[03:43] (223.60s)
senior level actually and then took
[03:46] (226.20s)
about two years to get up to lead so
[03:49] (229.32s)
it's been a fun ride making video games
[03:51] (231.48s)
I love it I work in security so there's
[03:53] (233.24s)
a lot that I can't answer about
[03:54] (234.56s)
specifics about my job but I'm happy to
[03:56] (236.64s)
give as many examples as I can not going
[03:59] (239.96s)
to tell us how to write
[04:03] (243.64s)
around oh that would be great all right
[04:06] (246.48s)
Zach All right so for me I started my
[04:09] (249.24s)
journey in big Tech at Facebook back
[04:11] (251.12s)
when it was Facebook back in 2016 doing
[04:13] (253.52s)
like data engineering kind of stuff and
[04:16] (256.44s)
I think I'm one of the ones here I think
[04:17] (257.96s)
me and Lee I guess are the ones who like
[04:19] (259.64s)
did the journey like through a bunch of
[04:21] (261.16s)
hops but then I went to Netflix I feel
[04:23] (263.68s)
like Netflix is where I got to staff but
[04:26] (266.04s)
like back then Netflix didn't have staff
[04:29] (269.04s)
everyone was just a senior engineer but
[04:30] (270.80s)
what I was working on there was really
[04:32] (272.40s)
crazy I also worked in security like
[04:34] (274.24s)
Carly when I worked at Netflix and then
[04:36] (276.84s)
I got the official staff title when I
[04:39] (279.00s)
jumped to Airbnb and there I worked for
[04:41] (281.64s)
two years I recently left I left about
[04:43] (283.28s)
six months ago now I'm doing like
[04:44] (284.48s)
content full-time but it's a fun fun gig
[04:47] (287.32s)
I'm been liking it yeah rul you're next
[04:50] (290.12s)
yeah all right I'm Rahul I am here at
[04:52] (292.44s)
the Bay Area unlike everyone here other
[04:55] (295.60s)
than Zach I do speak for my employer
[04:57] (297.68s)
because my employer is me taro I'm very
[05:00] (300.56s)
transparent and open happy to be open
[05:02] (302.72s)
about what was my experience like at
[05:04] (304.76s)
meta and Pinterest which is where I work
[05:06] (306.40s)
and also my kind of perspective as a
[05:09] (309.24s)
somewhat of Outsider now looking at
[05:11] (311.12s)
these big tech company but I run Taro my
[05:13] (313.92s)
experience in terms of big Tech is I was
[05:16] (316.08s)
at meta or Facebook for four and a half
[05:18] (318.24s)
years where which is where I went from
[05:20] (320.00s)
senior to staff engineer prior of that I
[05:22] (322.52s)
was at Pinterest for two and a half
[05:24] (324.84s)
years and fun fact there is that I
[05:26] (326.96s)
actually got rejected I got rejected for
[05:29] (329.04s)
promotion twice at at Pinterest so I
[05:31] (331.64s)
feel like I have certainly been on both
[05:34] (334.00s)
sides of as a manager and I I've been on
[05:36] (336.36s)
both sides of getting promoted and i'
[05:38] (338.20s)
also been rejected multiple times from
[05:40] (340.08s)
promotion so happy to talk about that
[05:41] (341.72s)
too prior to Pinterest I was at a
[05:43] (343.52s)
startup which got acquired by Pinterest
[05:44] (344.88s)
so that's another fun story but yeah I
[05:46] (346.84s)
feel like we have tons of really smart
[05:48] (348.64s)
people here and really eager to to dive
[05:50] (350.96s)
in I just chime in like Rahul just
[05:54] (354.32s)
mentioned not getting promoted at Amazon
[05:57] (357.20s)
I've tried to get promoted to senior sd3
[05:59] (359.64s)
three times and failed all of them the
[06:01] (361.76s)
first try to get to L6 as a manager
[06:04] (364.04s)
failed that happens and also like
[06:06] (366.80s)
talking to the people on this panel like
[06:08] (368.84s)
a lot of people grew through these
[06:11] (371.00s)
levels super fast some changing
[06:12] (372.84s)
companies some being super successful
[06:14] (374.76s)
within their company whereas like I was
[06:18] (378.04s)
17 years 16 years into my career or
[06:20] (380.80s)
something when I made it to this level
[06:22] (382.44s)
so it's not a race certainly like if you
[06:26] (386.76s)
are succeeding and progressing through
[06:28] (388.96s)
the levels off but I just want to also
[06:31] (391.68s)
set the expectation that it's not like
[06:34] (394.20s)
what you are hearing from some people
[06:37] (397.04s)
here and maybe all of us might not be
[06:39] (399.52s)
your path so don't freak out if you've
[06:42] (402.00s)
missed a senior promo the first try like
[06:44] (404.36s)
that's not a weird thing so anyway yeah
[06:47] (407.92s)
no I appreciate that input we do have a
[06:50] (410.16s)
lot of great perspective here old young
[06:52] (412.72s)
not old you're not old more mature
[06:54] (414.36s)
perspective and younger perspective and
[06:57] (417.08s)
different companies and so on so I'm
[06:58] (418.40s)
super excited here how it's going to
[07:00] (420.04s)
work we have a couple questions that we
[07:02] (422.76s)
think will be broadly interesting to the
[07:04] (424.64s)
225 of you here and then after we go
[07:08] (428.08s)
through a couple of those I think
[07:09] (429.32s)
that'll probably take between 45 minutes
[07:11] (431.08s)
or an hour then at the end we will do
[07:14] (434.16s)
open question so you can raise your hand
[07:16] (436.68s)
and we'll call on you and you can unmute
[07:19] (439.36s)
okay so to get started the first
[07:21] (441.76s)
question that um we have is tell us what
[07:24] (444.48s)
the main project or perhaps multiple
[07:27] (447.36s)
projects that got you promoted to the
[07:29] (449.60s)
staff level into you anyone want to
[07:31] (451.76s)
start here I I'll go first I think so
[07:34] (454.12s)
for me I think there was two things
[07:35] (455.52s)
there because I was at Netflix and the
[07:37] (457.32s)
titles that everyone was just like
[07:38] (458.92s)
senior but I felt like I had staff
[07:40] (460.48s)
responsibilities and then I got promoted
[07:41] (461.96s)
by hopping company so I think it was the
[07:43] (463.88s)
Netflix project that Airbnb was like
[07:46] (466.48s)
okay this guy's staff level so I'm gonna
[07:48] (468.48s)
even though it wasn't a promoe I never
[07:49] (469.92s)
really got promoted there I got hired at
[07:51] (471.76s)
company but anyways going from that I
[07:54] (474.28s)
worked on this project at Netflix called
[07:56] (476.28s)
asset inventory and Netflix is famous
[07:58] (478.80s)
for having kind of microservice
[08:00] (480.84s)
architecture and one of the things
[08:02] (482.40s)
that's awesome about microservices is
[08:04] (484.04s)
you have this individual ownership one
[08:05] (485.84s)
of the things that's terrible about
[08:07] (487.04s)
microservices is security because then
[08:09] (489.24s)
it's oh instead of having one app to
[08:10] (490.96s)
hack now there's 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000
[08:13] (493.64s)
apps to hack that each could have their
[08:15] (495.08s)
own different vulnerabilities and code
[08:16] (496.64s)
based problems and that was one of the
[08:18] (498.96s)
big nightmares that Netflix was trying
[08:20] (500.28s)
to figure out and the thing that I
[08:22] (502.52s)
worked on there was like I built this
[08:24] (504.16s)
graph database that described all of the
[08:27] (507.16s)
applications and code bases and data
[08:29] (509.64s)
sets and employees at the company and
[08:32] (512.00s)
how they're all connected and how they
[08:33] (513.40s)
all interact with one another and the
[08:34] (514.88s)
relationships between them it's like
[08:36] (516.40s)
this big ass knowledge graph of
[08:38] (518.08s)
everything and yeah I worked on that for
[08:40] (520.36s)
two years and that was a project was
[08:43] (523.00s)
really intense but yeah I would say that
[08:45] (525.48s)
was essentially what I worked on that
[08:46] (526.96s)
was like the thing that at least Airbnb
[08:49] (529.04s)
saw I was like yeah that's staff level
[08:51] (531.48s)
yeah so I'll hop been next I also wasn't
[08:54] (534.36s)
promoted I consider it's promoting
[08:55] (535.84s)
yourself when you've done the work and
[08:58] (538.00s)
you can convince someone someone else
[08:59] (539.96s)
that you're there and get hired that was
[09:02] (542.04s)
the direction I went but I had been
[09:04] (544.28s)
managing people for 3 years at Amazon
[09:06] (546.80s)
when I switched over to Facebook and at
[09:10] (550.16s)
and a staff level and so what I would
[09:13] (553.52s)
say is like doing the technical work was
[09:16] (556.48s)
not enough like being in a position to
[09:20] (560.04s)
lead people and know how to do that both
[09:23] (563.40s)
as an IC and as a people manager I think
[09:26] (566.08s)
is something that some people Overlook
[09:29] (569.12s)
they there are times where people are
[09:30] (570.48s)
like I but I delivered this huge project
[09:32] (572.96s)
and it had all this technical complexity
[09:35] (575.16s)
that's who else worked on it or how did
[09:37] (577.08s)
you plan that and how did you
[09:39] (579.40s)
parallelize those work streams how did
[09:41] (581.40s)
you like take risk prevention to make
[09:43] (583.88s)
sure the hardest thing wasn't the last
[09:45] (585.44s)
thing to get done and delay the project
[09:47] (587.08s)
and people are like I didn't have to I'm
[09:49] (589.20s)
indiv individually a genius and I
[09:51] (591.16s)
delivered it all myself and it's yeah
[09:52] (592.76s)
that's not necessarily meaning you're
[09:55] (595.16s)
there yet managing people and learning
[09:57] (597.16s)
to manage projects and work streams was
[09:59] (599.16s)
a big part of it at Amazon but before
[10:01] (601.56s)
that a lot of the work that I had done
[10:03] (603.32s)
as an IC that I think put me in a
[10:05] (605.40s)
position to speak about the technical
[10:07] (607.60s)
complexity when getting these other jobs
[10:10] (610.04s)
um mostly had to do with Android
[10:12] (612.00s)
internals um I was working on an app I
[10:14] (614.48s)
wasn't working on Android itself I
[10:17] (617.20s)
happen to be working on something that
[10:19] (619.08s)
is part of Google Play services which is
[10:21] (621.04s)
part of Android right now but in any
[10:22] (622.80s)
event at the time it was just like we
[10:25] (625.04s)
have these complicated apps and they
[10:27] (627.84s)
don't fit essentially
[10:30] (630.00s)
into the amount of it was a method limit
[10:33] (633.28s)
I don't know how familiar people are but
[10:35] (635.16s)
I had to write something that had a
[10:36] (636.80s)
custom class loader to allow us to use
[10:38] (638.80s)
multiple executable files in an Android
[10:41] (641.64s)
application before Google started
[10:43] (643.36s)
supporting that and put out something
[10:45] (645.48s)
that did that and that was like the most
[10:47] (647.16s)
technically complex thing that I had to
[10:49] (649.36s)
do to allow Amazon video which was what
[10:52] (652.48s)
I was working on it's Prime video now
[10:54] (654.60s)
and then like combination apps with the
[10:56] (656.36s)
shopping app and the App Store and video
[10:58] (658.72s)
like all the things in them like it
[11:00] (660.68s)
wouldn't work with just one and we
[11:03] (663.44s)
weren't going to tell Engineers like ah
[11:05] (665.60s)
put all the functionality into one big
[11:07] (667.84s)
method and have a switch statement on
[11:09] (669.48s)
the like operation or something like we
[11:11] (671.80s)
didn't want people to code dumb because
[11:14] (674.08s)
of this technical limitation so like
[11:16] (676.36s)
overcoming that and not just like having
[11:18] (678.56s)
a solution but making it work and
[11:20] (680.08s)
delivering that that app that could
[11:22] (682.80s)
continue to be extended was probably the
[11:25] (685.08s)
like biggest Tech project I'll kick it
[11:27] (687.56s)
to Ryan yeah
[11:29] (689.92s)
and you mentioned an interesting thing
[11:31] (691.64s)
which is being brilliant and shipping
[11:33] (693.80s)
everything yourself versus working in a
[11:36] (696.12s)
team for the staff level this is one of
[11:38] (698.52s)
the first levels where the Baseline
[11:40] (700.84s)
expectation is that you influence others
[11:43] (703.28s)
to get large undertakings that actually
[11:46] (706.16s)
built into the expectations of these
[11:48] (708.00s)
levels is that you're a leader and that
[11:50] (710.08s)
you're influencing people because
[11:52] (712.00s)
software is inherently collaborative and
[11:54] (714.28s)
so about the project that got me
[11:56] (716.36s)
promoted this work was a large
[11:58] (718.68s)
efficiency project it made video
[12:01] (721.92s)
processing at Instagram significantly
[12:04] (724.04s)
cheaper 94% cheaper for some of the
[12:07] (727.68s)
basic encodings that we produce and I
[12:10] (730.16s)
think a large part of what made this
[12:11] (731.96s)
project staff level and helped me get
[12:14] (734.12s)
promoted was that I created this scope
[12:17] (737.08s)
which meant that I went and I found it I
[12:19] (739.52s)
convinced people was a good idea I got
[12:21] (741.32s)
Buy in and then I led the execution on
[12:23] (743.72s)
it and going back to if I executed on it
[12:27] (747.00s)
personally I would step in for the most
[12:29] (749.20s)
critical components that added risk to
[12:31] (751.44s)
the project but in large part this
[12:34] (754.00s)
project was being executed on by several
[12:35] (755.76s)
engineers and I was bleeding and doing
[12:38] (758.92s)
the code review to make sure everything
[12:40] (760.80s)
came together in the end it's not just
[12:42] (762.80s)
me that worked on this project there's a
[12:44] (764.28s)
lot of other people that came together
[12:46] (766.00s)
to make this happen but I think the key
[12:48] (768.12s)
here that makes it staff level is like
[12:50] (770.28s)
the leadership and convincing everyone
[12:52] (772.40s)
that it's a good idea and going for um
[12:56] (776.04s)
so I'll pass it to Carly
[12:59] (779.44s)
hi interesting hearing all of you talk
[13:01] (781.56s)
about your Journeys because I've been
[13:03] (783.64s)
thinking about this a lot with my team
[13:05] (785.64s)
as well and it seems like what it takes
[13:08] (788.84s)
to get to the next level like everyone
[13:10] (790.48s)
has already said this is not just being
[13:12] (792.88s)
technically brilliant right it really
[13:14] (794.76s)
comes down to in my opinion in wars and
[13:17] (797.16s)
Trust for me I was obviously working on
[13:19] (799.84s)
a security project that's about as in
[13:21] (801.92s)
detailed that go but I was I had taken
[13:24] (804.40s)
ownership of a decent of a technical
[13:27] (807.04s)
piece of this project but
[13:29] (809.96s)
what I think and I had also I had hired
[13:32] (812.16s)
some one thought I had a direct report
[13:34] (814.04s)
under me and we were both kind of
[13:35] (815.40s)
attacking this problem from multiple
[13:36] (816.92s)
different angles I think what set me
[13:40] (820.64s)
apart and what led to my promotion to
[13:42] (822.80s)
staff was a couple of different things
[13:45] (825.28s)
number one I can actually pinpoint it
[13:47] (827.20s)
back to a presentation that I gave to an
[13:50] (830.12s)
executive leader in our company based on
[13:52] (832.52s)
some work that I had done as the
[13:54] (834.00s)
findings that I had uncovered and I
[13:56] (836.64s)
think being able to speak technically to
[13:59] (839.48s)
an audience that might not necessarily
[14:01] (841.28s)
want to sit in an engineering meeting
[14:03] (843.68s)
was something that really set me apart
[14:05] (845.12s)
from some of the other people that they
[14:06] (846.48s)
deal with who are working on highly
[14:08] (848.00s)
technical complicated problems and just
[14:10] (850.80s)
coming across as a trusted collaborator
[14:13] (853.76s)
and so out of that meeting I had an
[14:15] (855.80s)
opportunity to switch and so I didn't
[14:18] (858.00s)
change companies but I did do an
[14:19] (859.88s)
internal move to get to staff and that's
[14:22] (862.80s)
how I landed where I'm at now and so I
[14:25] (865.64s)
was actually interviewing or presenting
[14:29] (869.16s)
to someone in executive leadership and
[14:31] (871.52s)
as well as our CTO and he offered me a
[14:34] (874.60s)
job working for him after that
[14:36] (876.32s)
presentation and so we were able to make
[14:37] (877.92s)
that work it was really exciting for me
[14:39] (879.92s)
um because it opened up a lot more doors
[14:41] (881.64s)
for me I don't say that to say that's
[14:43] (883.88s)
normal you're not going to go into the
[14:45] (885.24s)
office of like Zuckerberg and kicked
[14:47] (887.36s)
down the door be like oh staff now but
[14:50] (890.64s)
at the same time you should be prepared
[14:52] (892.44s)
at a moment's notice be able to speak
[14:54] (894.08s)
eloquently to your work exactly like
[14:56] (896.52s)
what Lee said you should know your
[14:58] (898.56s)
numbers you should be able to recite
[15:01] (901.20s)
like the impact that you've had and you
[15:03] (903.36s)
need to be able to do this to Technical
[15:05] (905.40s)
and non-technical audiences and
[15:07] (907.68s)
oftentimes the people who are making the
[15:09] (909.84s)
decisions about whether or not you're
[15:11] (911.64s)
ready to move to the next level are both
[15:14] (914.08s)
so it's not just the fact that you can I
[15:16] (916.88s)
don't know do some crazy algorithm if
[15:19] (919.16s)
that you can actually speak to it to a
[15:21] (921.64s)
Layman make them understand and the
[15:23] (923.60s)
value in your work and I think that's
[15:25] (925.76s)
where you tip yourself over the Ed and
[15:27] (927.84s)
then of course there's all collaborative
[15:29] (929.56s)
nature of these projects right like it's
[15:31] (931.52s)
not just enough to be like oh I built a
[15:33] (933.84s)
machine learning model right like in my
[15:35] (935.76s)
case it needs to be larger scale
[15:38] (938.72s)
collaborative across a couple different
[15:40] (940.32s)
business units something that obviously
[15:42] (942.96s)
speaks to a pain point of the business
[15:45] (945.80s)
right I think everyone here universally
[15:47] (947.40s)
just described something that was
[15:48] (948.72s)
problematic for their company if you can
[15:50] (950.96s)
solve those problems like you're going
[15:53] (953.16s)
to be cheat up for Success all right are
[15:55] (955.64s)
you gonna be answering or
[15:59] (959.24s)
I'll time in here just because I feel
[16:00] (960.48s)
like I have a couple things that uh I
[16:02] (962.80s)
think might be helpful to people and
[16:04] (964.16s)
then for the future questions just in
[16:06] (966.40s)
the interest of throughput we don't all
[16:08] (968.60s)
have to answer you just whoever wants to
[16:10] (970.40s)
they can if they have something to say
[16:11] (971.68s)
they can answer but for this one I did
[16:13] (973.16s)
want to add to the great answers we
[16:15] (975.04s)
already heard I there were two projects
[16:16] (976.88s)
that got me promoted to stff engineer at
[16:19] (979.92s)
meta the first was actually an internal
[16:22] (982.16s)
tool that helped the debug ability of
[16:25] (985.24s)
the product I was working on and I was
[16:27] (987.04s)
able to quantify that it saved literally
[16:29] (989.16s)
thousands of hours of engineering time
[16:31] (991.28s)
throughout the course of the year and it
[16:33] (993.72s)
became effectiv like a platform where
[16:35] (995.60s)
other Engineers could add in their own
[16:37] (997.76s)
debug ability metrics their own debug
[16:40] (1000.00s)
ability tooling into this kind of
[16:42] (1002.68s)
architecture platform I built out so it
[16:44] (1004.72s)
was really creating scope and allowing
[16:46] (1006.72s)
other people to plug in that's a really
[16:48] (1008.48s)
powerful way to have multiplicative
[16:50] (1010.96s)
impact right and then on top of that I
[16:53] (1013.72s)
had another project which was what I
[16:55] (1015.16s)
would consider my main project which is
[16:57] (1017.16s)
re architecting something about the
[16:59] (1019.32s)
product I was working so a calling
[17:00] (1020.80s)
architecture I was modernizing it to a
[17:02] (1022.96s)
different team that had a set of API and
[17:06] (1026.08s)
that's actually one of the lessons I
[17:07] (1027.16s)
wanted to share is that one way to think
[17:09] (1029.24s)
about getting promoted to these very
[17:11] (1031.08s)
high levels is to think about a
[17:12] (1032.84s)
portfolio of bets that you're making so
[17:15] (1035.48s)
if you just have one project that you're
[17:17] (1037.04s)
so hellbent on delivering that's a good
[17:20] (1040.24s)
thing for the most part but in a big
[17:21] (1041.92s)
tech company there are a lot of things
[17:23] (1043.48s)
that frankly are not in your control and
[17:26] (1046.16s)
so having one main project is what I did
[17:28] (1048.92s)
along with one project which was more of
[17:31] (1051.00s)
a internal tool or something that I had
[17:33] (1053.08s)
a lot more control over that worked out
[17:35] (1055.36s)
really well because in both of them in
[17:37] (1057.12s)
tandem led to a huge amount of impact
[17:39] (1059.40s)
right and you when you're blocked on one
[17:40] (1060.60s)
you can work on the other that's one
[17:41] (1061.76s)
thing I wanted to take away or share as
[17:43] (1063.68s)
a takeaway is that you can actually
[17:45] (1065.76s)
think about having maybe two or three
[17:47] (1067.72s)
projects probably not 10 right you want
[17:49] (1069.32s)
to have maybe two projects that you can
[17:50] (1070.60s)
kind of balance between the other
[17:52] (1072.68s)
comment I wanted to make here is like I
[17:55] (1075.24s)
think Zach you mentioned this right that
[17:57] (1077.00s)
you got hired in as a staff engineer at
[17:59] (1079.84s)
Airbnb and that's another thing that's
[18:01] (1081.92s)
worth calling out is that in in addition
[18:03] (1083.80s)
to working hard and impressing all of
[18:05] (1085.84s)
your colleagues and having enough impact
[18:07] (1087.56s)
at your company another core ingredient
[18:10] (1090.36s)
of getting promoted to a very senior
[18:12] (1092.52s)
level is there needs to be sufficient
[18:14] (1094.48s)
business need for that right there needs
[18:16] (1096.04s)
to be scope that you can fill in to be a
[18:19] (1099.24s)
staff engineer and frankly at some
[18:22] (1102.16s)
companies which are not growing quickly
[18:23] (1103.60s)
they're stagnant there may not be that
[18:25] (1105.48s)
scope and so I think a lot of us are
[18:27] (1107.96s)
talking here about getting promoted
[18:29] (1109.20s)
internally I think that's certainly a
[18:30] (1110.72s)
really uh good thing and we should all
[18:32] (1112.88s)
drive for that but keep in mind that
[18:34] (1114.88s)
there's also an opportunity to get
[18:36] (1116.28s)
promoted simply by moving to a company
[18:38] (1118.44s)
where there's a need for your skill set
[18:41] (1121.04s)
yeah by the way on the portfolio of bet
[18:43] (1123.88s)
that's a really interesting point if you
[18:45] (1125.88s)
look at any promo packet it is a track
[18:49] (1129.24s)
record of multiple halves worth of work
[18:52] (1132.08s)
so it's not usually you're doing great
[18:54] (1134.28s)
and all of a sudden you have a staff
[18:56] (1136.00s)
project and boom you get promoted you've
[18:58] (1138.20s)
usually been doing it for a while you
[19:00] (1140.20s)
probably have some sort of track record
[19:01] (1141.92s)
so that when your packet goes to the
[19:04] (1144.04s)
promo committee people are aware of your
[19:06] (1146.12s)
name and you've been doing near staff or
[19:09] (1149.44s)
at staff level work for some time yeah
[19:12] (1152.36s)
that is a great call out one thing I
[19:14] (1154.92s)
just want to mention I dropped a link
[19:16] (1156.80s)
similar to what Ryan did earlier I
[19:18] (1158.68s)
dropped a link for uh video that I put
[19:21] (1161.20s)
on Taro actually about a case study for
[19:23] (1163.96s)
my promotion story so if that's
[19:25] (1165.08s)
interesting to folks check that out
[19:27] (1167.28s)
unless there's anything else to add here
[19:29] (1169.12s)
I'll move on to the next question yeah I
[19:31] (1171.20s)
think one thing I just want to add real
[19:32] (1172.40s)
quick about the one of the things you
[19:33] (1173.92s)
said rul that I love is multiplicative
[19:36] (1176.52s)
impact so I like to think of if you're a
[19:38] (1178.96s)
staff engineer at least like when I've
[19:40] (1180.72s)
been working as a staff engineer like I
[19:42] (1182.60s)
think of creating impact in two
[19:44] (1184.92s)
directions you have like your vertical
[19:46] (1186.32s)
impact of the direct impact that you
[19:47] (1187.92s)
want to have on the business and then
[19:49] (1189.44s)
you have a horizontal impact which is
[19:51] (1191.44s)
how can I enable my team to move quicker
[19:54] (1194.44s)
and how can I enable what about the
[19:56] (1196.44s)
development process sucks and how can we
[19:58] (1198.44s)
make the development process better and
[20:00] (1200.20s)
thinking about not just what we are
[20:01] (1201.88s)
building but how we are building it and
[20:04] (1204.44s)
if you can do the if you can solve both
[20:06] (1206.08s)
those how problems and the what problems
[20:08] (1208.72s)
that's when people are like wow this guy
[20:10] (1210.16s)
is really changing things and changing
[20:11] (1211.72s)
how things work I know for me that was
[20:13] (1213.44s)
like one of the other projects I worked
[20:14] (1214.84s)
on that Netflix was I decided I was like
[20:17] (1217.08s)
I want to learn some groovy script so I
[20:18] (1218.96s)
can learn how to cut deploy times down
[20:21] (1221.16s)
so then on my team I was able to write
[20:23] (1223.00s)
this groovy script that cut down the jar
[20:25] (1225.52s)
file that we deployed for our pipelines
[20:28] (1228.08s)
and it removed all the unused
[20:29] (1229.64s)
dependencies and it made it so that
[20:31] (1231.52s)
depending on the project they either
[20:32] (1232.72s)
saved 1 to seven minutes per deploy
[20:35] (1235.60s)
which saved on average like an engineer
[20:37] (1237.44s)
is going to deploy probably five or six
[20:38] (1238.80s)
times a day when they're testing a
[20:39] (1239.92s)
pipeline so it saves them like 30
[20:41] (1241.64s)
minutes to an hour a day that's a lot of
[20:43] (1243.48s)
like time that we get back if you and
[20:45] (1245.56s)
then if you scale that out then it's
[20:47] (1247.16s)
like more a matter of adoption than it
[20:49] (1249.04s)
is of technical Excellence because then
[20:50] (1250.84s)
all you have to do is scale that out and
[20:52] (1252.28s)
get more people to adopt it and then
[20:53] (1253.64s)
you're like see oh now I have a hundred
[20:55] (1255.20s)
Engineers working and using this and
[20:56] (1256.68s)
then it's okay wow that's freaking
[20:58] (1258.60s)
that's how you can really also get a lot
[21:00] (1260.32s)
of big impact as well yeah actually 66
[21:04] (1264.56s)
people with a 16% increase is a 10x
[21:08] (1268.16s)
engineer like you don't do 10x yourself
[21:12] (1272.24s)
1% for a thousand people 10% for 100
[21:16] (1276.52s)
that is where you actually make that
[21:19] (1279.36s)
kind of impact in my opinion yeah
[21:21] (1281.68s)
definitely and I've studied some
[21:23] (1283.36s)
Engineers that are the L9 level which is
[21:26] (1286.56s)
three levels higher than we're
[21:28] (1288.80s)
discussing now these people are Legend
[21:31] (1291.16s)
and looked at the things that they do
[21:33] (1293.20s)
and often times they are just making
[21:35] (1295.72s)
compounding improvements that make all
[21:37] (1297.84s)
of meta faster and so imagine you make
[21:40] (1300.76s)
the tooling that everyone's using 10%
[21:42] (1302.76s)
better and there's five figures worth of
[21:45] (1305.12s)
Engineers you're that's absurd impact
[21:48] (1308.40s)
this definitely scills if you're
[21:49] (1309.52s)
thinking even past staff level making
[21:51] (1311.84s)
other people faster in large
[21:54] (1314.24s)
organization that's a great segue
[21:56] (1316.08s)
actually into a question that Brian had
[21:57] (1317.72s)
and was a question I ask as well Brian
[22:00] (1320.16s)
wrote for a staff engineer they often
[22:02] (1322.28s)
will create or find their own scope or
[22:04] (1324.20s)
problem but at the senior level one
[22:06] (1326.12s)
level below you still need to do the
[22:08] (1328.04s)
actual work of coding or implementing
[22:10] (1330.60s)
something so how do you do both I think
[22:13] (1333.00s)
the question if I could rephrase it is
[22:14] (1334.72s)
how do you think about balancing the art
[22:17] (1337.60s)
of delegating delegating work versus
[22:20] (1340.20s)
doing it yourself I'll jump in here I
[22:22] (1342.60s)
think that I this reminds me a lot of
[22:24] (1344.60s)
conversations I had with my manager Jen
[22:26] (1346.60s)
when I worked at Airbnb where each week
[22:28] (1348.88s)
we would talk about are you managing
[22:30] (1350.92s)
enough are you delegating enough are you
[22:33] (1353.12s)
like working are you coding enough and
[22:34] (1354.92s)
like to make sure that I was
[22:37] (1357.12s)
contributing in each bucket enough
[22:39] (1359.04s)
because I'm definitely someone who likes
[22:40] (1360.68s)
to just nerd out and just like code
[22:42] (1362.56s)
Scala all day and just get into the
[22:44] (1364.36s)
nitty-gritty details of wow just really
[22:46] (1366.32s)
get geeking out but then I do that I've
[22:48] (1368.36s)
definitely been in that position where I
[22:49] (1369.64s)
do that to the detriment of my team and
[22:52] (1372.16s)
that's like a problem where I know I
[22:53] (1373.92s)
need to be leaning more into leadership
[22:55] (1375.52s)
those weeks and that's where having at
[22:57] (1377.48s)
least for me having just very Frank
[22:59] (1379.04s)
conversations with my manager about how
[23:00] (1380.64s)
I'm spending my time makes me like and
[23:03] (1383.32s)
then really taking her feedback in and
[23:05] (1385.56s)
understanding like oh like I am not
[23:07] (1387.56s)
leading enough and I need to be doing
[23:09] (1389.20s)
more leadership at least for me that's
[23:10] (1390.80s)
the bias U depending on the staff
[23:12] (1392.40s)
engineer you might have one who's if if
[23:14] (1394.12s)
a staff engineer is an engineer who came
[23:15] (1395.80s)
from management they might have the bias
[23:17] (1397.72s)
the other way around where they're like
[23:19] (1399.04s)
peopling too much and they're not
[23:20] (1400.80s)
drisking uh the technicals enough so
[23:23] (1403.72s)
like you got you really want to learn
[23:25] (1405.16s)
your own biases depending on your
[23:27] (1407.12s)
background and if you know your own
[23:28] (1408.84s)
biases are then you can try to adjust
[23:30] (1410.72s)
for them to get into that kind of sweet
[23:32] (1412.32s)
spot and that might not be 50/50 each
[23:34] (1414.44s)
week you might not be like I did two and
[23:35] (1415.68s)
a half days of leadership and two and a
[23:37] (1417.04s)
half days of coding some weeks you might
[23:38] (1418.84s)
do four days of coding in one day of
[23:40] (1420.56s)
leadership and it might be the other way
[23:41] (1421.92s)
around another week it like it really
[23:44] (1424.16s)
depends on the balance that you're
[23:45] (1425.20s)
trying to look for but there's also like
[23:47] (1427.60s)
how you lead if you're doing deep
[23:49] (1429.44s)
technical work you might be leading by
[23:51] (1431.16s)
example you might need to be sharing
[23:52] (1432.72s)
that out more you might need to be
[23:54] (1434.40s)
pairing with some Junior people to be
[23:56] (1436.44s)
divvying up work as you dive into it it
[23:58] (1438.88s)
so they can follow some of the threads
[24:00] (1440.64s)
instead of you having to do it all
[24:02] (1442.16s)
yourself but like leading I this is one
[24:05] (1445.16s)
of the things that I said when I was
[24:06] (1446.56s)
like moving back and forth between IC
[24:08] (1448.36s)
and management was like am I leading
[24:10] (1450.16s)
from the front right now or am I leading
[24:11] (1451.80s)
from the back am I pointing people the
[24:13] (1453.72s)
direction they need to go or am I up
[24:15] (1455.68s)
front and finding it and sending them
[24:18] (1458.00s)
down the path with me and in terms of
[24:21] (1461.00s)
that I think that you like how you lead
[24:25] (1465.92s)
it it varies by team none of this stuff
[24:28] (1468.96s)
is globally applicable some teams you're
[24:31] (1471.80s)
like amongst peers that are all about
[24:34] (1474.08s)
the same level as you how you lead that
[24:36] (1476.56s)
team is way different than if it's all
[24:38] (1478.52s)
new grads and you're the only person
[24:40] (1480.12s)
that's been doing this for more than 20
[24:41] (1481.72s)
minutes like how you lead yes getting
[24:45] (1485.88s)
input from your manager can be really
[24:48] (1488.20s)
helpful because they can be like yo you
[24:50] (1490.76s)
spent the last three weeks and you did
[24:53] (1493.16s)
get that 4% performance Improvement and
[24:55] (1495.52s)
that's cool but no one understands how
[24:57] (1497.28s)
you did it no one knows what's going on
[25:00] (1500.44s)
like you didn't tell anyone what tools
[25:02] (1502.52s)
you used and if you were hit by a bus
[25:05] (1505.64s)
tomorrow we wouldn't even get it
[25:06] (1506.84s)
committed so like you know how you do it
[25:11] (1511.00s)
is as or more important than what you do
[25:13] (1513.76s)
I think though true Le it makes me think
[25:16] (1516.64s)
of how I would manage zap which is
[25:18] (1518.44s)
actually a terrifying because I think we
[25:20] (1520.92s)
would either have way too much fun or
[25:22] (1522.20s)
kill each other but honestly I think
[25:24] (1524.76s)
about with someone with Zach's Talent
[25:27] (1527.28s)
right like he's obviously incredibly
[25:29] (1529.04s)
successful and have the technical depth
[25:30] (1530.92s)
that most people don't I would be remiss
[25:34] (1534.52s)
if I let him go deep technically every
[25:37] (1537.60s)
single day and no one really knows
[25:39] (1539.68s)
exactly what he's doing like the force
[25:41] (1541.72s)
multiplier for super like Zach will be
[25:44] (1544.28s)
if I can get him into the R&D and design
[25:47] (1547.24s)
if I can make sure that he has input in
[25:50] (1550.24s)
all of the big projects that are going
[25:51] (1551.96s)
on we understand Road mapap and we have
[25:55] (1555.48s)
someone there who's be like that's going
[25:57] (1557.12s)
to break that's going to get [ __ ]
[25:58] (1558.60s)
that's going to work and knowing being
[26:00] (1560.28s)
able to do that quickly and then someone
[26:02] (1562.00s)
else can get into the deep into the
[26:03] (1563.64s)
schol and or depending on what it is and
[26:06] (1566.12s)
he might need to step in in Hell
[26:08] (1568.24s)
something really complicated but I think
[26:10] (1570.56s)
that if I were in a position that's what
[26:12] (1572.56s)
I would want from him because that where
[26:14] (1574.72s)
he think that would be the most
[26:16] (1576.20s)
effective use of his time but it's hard
[26:18] (1578.40s)
because you also don't want to be in
[26:19] (1579.52s)
meaningful day so it's a definite
[26:21] (1581.24s)
balance something you have to talk to
[26:22] (1582.76s)
your manager about something that came
[26:25] (1585.00s)
out of what Carly just said is one of
[26:26] (1586.76s)
the most powerful tools is asking the
[26:28] (1588.88s)
right question at the right time you
[26:31] (1591.04s)
being in the right place to hear someone
[26:33] (1593.28s)
say that they're going to
[26:35] (1595.08s)
rearchitecturing
[26:42] (1602.16s)
that's not the right Focus we can put
[26:45] (1605.08s)
that behind a shim and we can deal with
[26:47] (1607.80s)
that later can be the difference between
[26:50] (1610.64s)
successful projects and failing projects
[26:53] (1613.16s)
if you don't have you know your senior
[26:55] (1615.52s)
most people involved in those
[26:57] (1617.84s)
discussions s they might call that out 3
[27:01] (1621.56s)
or four months from now when you've
[27:03] (1623.36s)
already sunk like two or three Dev years
[27:05] (1625.60s)
into something and 20 minutes of their
[27:08] (1628.84s)
time could have prevented that so like
[27:11] (1631.12s)
where you are applying these I I don't
[27:14] (1634.36s)
call people resources but where you're
[27:16] (1636.08s)
applying these people time it can easily
[27:20] (1640.16s)
like you know if they miss a hallway
[27:22] (1642.40s)
conversation it can be costly they can't
[27:24] (1644.28s)
be everywhere all at once but knowing
[27:27] (1647.40s)
like this is going to be an important
[27:29] (1649.48s)
thing this design matters like we need
[27:31] (1651.36s)
eyes on it yeah I want to just add more
[27:34] (1654.24s)
on that CU I like it really that
[27:36] (1656.56s)
triggered my like beginning experience
[27:38] (1658.48s)
at Airbnb because when I started there
[27:40] (1660.76s)
they were like talking to me about we
[27:42] (1662.40s)
need to get these profitability numbers
[27:43] (1663.92s)
certified we need to do it that way and
[27:45] (1665.84s)
it was like that was like the
[27:47] (1667.40s)
stakeholders were really loud about that
[27:49] (1669.16s)
and I was new so I was like okay I trust
[27:51] (1671.32s)
you guys because when you're brand new
[27:53] (1673.36s)
at a company you have to lean into
[27:55] (1675.40s)
stakeholder requests until you get the
[27:57] (1677.24s)
lay of the land s and I realized after
[28:00] (1680.00s)
about six months there like listening to
[28:01] (1681.48s)
these stakeholders and then learning
[28:02] (1682.88s)
like more about and then I I finally got
[28:05] (1685.28s)
the courage enough to ask what is the
[28:07] (1687.40s)
fundamental difference if the if these
[28:08] (1688.92s)
numbers are certified or not and like
[28:10] (1690.68s)
the answer to that was like essentially
[28:13] (1693.32s)
nothing or there was like one day
[28:15] (1695.20s)
difference in delay and that didn't have
[28:17] (1697.44s)
any like really strong fundamental
[28:19] (1699.40s)
impact on the business whereas other
[28:21] (1701.08s)
things we could be working on would and
[28:23] (1703.28s)
so I actually told my manager at the
[28:25] (1705.00s)
time I was like I spent six months on
[28:26] (1706.96s)
that where we had like all the seniors
[28:29] (1709.16s)
and me working on this trying to get
[28:30] (1710.80s)
these numbers certified but it's a very
[28:32] (1712.32s)
complicated pipeline that was not going
[28:33] (1713.68s)
to happen and I was like yo this is like
[28:35] (1715.60s)
a diminishing return I don't think we're
[28:37] (1717.40s)
GNA like really get much value out of
[28:39] (1719.84s)
working on this longer and like trying
[28:41] (1721.76s)
to push this to the Finish Line even
[28:43] (1723.24s)
though the stakeholders were really loud
[28:44] (1724.56s)
about that and then I was like I think
[28:46] (1726.08s)
we should change to focus on other
[28:47] (1727.88s)
things that are going to have higher
[28:49] (1729.16s)
impact and if you can explain the impact
[28:51] (1731.40s)
of things like that can be awesome cuz
[28:53] (1733.16s)
sometimes that can also save you a lot
[28:54] (1734.28s)
of Dev headache like what Lee was saying
[28:56] (1736.12s)
is if you could just show people how to
[28:57] (1737.52s)
prioritize things then maybe you can
[28:59] (1739.28s)
work on things that you enjoy more too
[29:01] (1741.56s)
because those profitability metrics
[29:02] (1742.92s)
those freaking those things almost ended
[29:04] (1744.32s)
me at Airbnb so hard but like you and
[29:07] (1747.64s)
three people working on that probably
[29:09] (1749.20s)
for four months probably cost the
[29:10] (1750.64s)
company a million plus dollars exactly
[29:12] (1752.80s)
exactly salary not even like opportunity
[29:15] (1755.44s)
cost totally it's that's a sunk cost not
[29:18] (1758.08s)
and what was the opportunity that we
[29:19] (1759.72s)
gave up for that and that's a thing that
[29:21] (1761.64s)
I think is another big part about being
[29:23] (1763.20s)
a staff engineer is you need to be able
[29:24] (1764.76s)
to persuade and like convince and it's
[29:27] (1767.20s)
because it's up to you you're the leader
[29:29] (1769.76s)
here like you could you get to decide
[29:31] (1771.36s)
what to work on a lot of the time your
[29:33] (1773.08s)
manager leans on you to identify the
[29:35] (1775.20s)
impacts and identify what things should
[29:37] (1777.12s)
be worked on and it's also up to you to
[29:39] (1779.92s)
recognize like what shouldn't be worked
[29:41] (1781.68s)
on even if the stakeholders are loud
[29:43] (1783.24s)
about it even if even if there's a lot
[29:44] (1784.60s)
of people with a lot of opinions that
[29:46] (1786.36s)
think that this is the right thing to do
[29:48] (1788.16s)
so and you need to have that courage to
[29:49] (1789.88s)
tell people like no we're de we're depr
[29:52] (1792.08s)
prioritizing your thing even though I
[29:53] (1793.60s)
know you're going to be mad about it
[29:54] (1794.72s)
doesn't matter what it's not the highest
[29:56] (1796.12s)
priority now and I think that and being
[29:58] (1798.48s)
able to explain that thought process can
[30:00] (1800.72s)
be wonderful and it helps your cross
[30:02] (1802.56s)
functional Partners respect you more
[30:04] (1804.84s)
because if especially if you
[30:06] (1806.04s)
deprioritize their project but you don't
[30:08] (1808.32s)
have a clear line of reasoning for it
[30:10] (1810.56s)
then you're going to build a lot more
[30:12] (1812.24s)
mistrust and you're going to build a lot
[30:13] (1813.88s)
more kind of resentment potentially like
[30:16] (1816.00s)
mistrust first then resentment if it
[30:17] (1817.92s)
keeps happening and I've seen that
[30:19] (1819.60s)
happen too where Team Dynamics have
[30:20] (1820.80s)
fallen apart right where these
[30:22] (1822.12s)
communications have not happened and so
[30:24] (1824.36s)
that's definitely another skill that I
[30:25] (1825.60s)
think is very important for success as a
[30:27] (1827.28s)
staff engineer and one one last thing to
[30:29] (1829.76s)
add so I think Lee you spoke a little
[30:31] (1831.60s)
bit about the needs of the team and
[30:34] (1834.32s)
maybe the needs of the project if there
[30:36] (1836.56s)
is a lot of senior people on the project
[30:39] (1839.32s)
it's going to completely change things
[30:40] (1840.88s)
but if there's a lot of hand working on
[30:42] (1842.52s)
execution maybe you're more in a
[30:44] (1844.68s)
leadership capacity one thing that I'd
[30:46] (1846.96s)
like to add is also it depends on your
[30:49] (1849.28s)
strengths as well so there are some
[30:52] (1852.20s)
Specialists or people who are
[30:54] (1854.56s)
ridiculously productive or just them
[30:57] (1857.52s)
execute is worth like four or five
[30:59] (1859.68s)
Engineers those people can have staff
[31:03] (1863.28s)
level impact by doing all the execution
[31:05] (1865.92s)
themselves they are still expected to
[31:07] (1867.88s)
scale themselves by sharing their
[31:09] (1869.76s)
knowledge and those types of things but
[31:12] (1872.20s)
they may be doing Almost 100% the
[31:14] (1874.12s)
execution themselves because they're
[31:16] (1876.16s)
ridiculously productive or maybe they're
[31:18] (1878.28s)
specialist and no one else can do their
[31:19] (1879.88s)
exact work it it depends it depends on
[31:22] (1882.00s)
your strength not everyone the tech lead
[31:24] (1884.24s)
archetype some people are just heads
[31:26] (1886.56s)
down coder some people people are domain
[31:28] (1888.76s)
specialist yeah isn't isn't that the
[31:30] (1890.60s)
archetype you're describing there I
[31:31] (1891.80s)
swear I remember at meow when I was
[31:33] (1893.24s)
there I was like they had the like the
[31:35] (1895.00s)
code monster AR type code machine I love
[31:38] (1898.52s)
that one for sure that's great for sure
[31:40] (1900.60s)
I feel I relate to that a lot for sure I
[31:43] (1903.32s)
don't that we answered this question at
[31:45] (1905.28s)
all I think we had a super interesting
[31:48] (1908.08s)
conversation but I don't know that we
[31:49] (1909.92s)
answered like where you find and make up
[31:52] (1912.68s)
this scope I I the thing is that that
[31:56] (1916.60s)
gets bandied about because you start to
[32:00] (1920.52s)
get better than the people that are
[32:02] (1922.40s)
managing you at your job and they can't
[32:06] (1926.40s)
find these things anymore they can't
[32:09] (1929.48s)
know what the sort of landmines are in
[32:13] (1933.08s)
your project they can't know what
[32:15] (1935.68s)
technical things are actually
[32:17] (1937.08s)
constraining projects anymore and so
[32:20] (1940.12s)
that's where the like you need to invent
[32:22] (1942.32s)
it is like you don't need to make up
[32:24] (1944.44s)
something to get promoted like that is a
[32:27] (1947.48s)
bad choice you need to identify the
[32:30] (1950.96s)
things that are hurting and that are
[32:33] (1953.56s)
holding the team back and raise those
[32:36] (1956.16s)
things up and convince people to get
[32:38] (1958.20s)
them done and do them and that is where
[32:41] (1961.64s)
you're like inventing quote unquote this
[32:44] (1964.12s)
scope is I I consider it like was
[32:47] (1967.36s)
calculus invented or discovered like I
[32:49] (1969.68s)
would say it was discovered and so are
[32:51] (1971.48s)
these like pieces of scope that you need
[32:53] (1973.76s)
to come up with you may invent something
[32:56] (1976.40s)
brand new and convince people to do it
[32:59] (1979.28s)
but most often you're discovering the
[33:01] (1981.56s)
things that must be done that either
[33:03] (1983.72s)
other people are afraid of they don't
[33:06] (1986.20s)
see they don't think are valuable and
[33:09] (1989.12s)
you are in the position that you have to
[33:11] (1991.00s)
convince them that they are going to
[33:13] (1993.56s)
actually accelerate the next three
[33:15] (1995.80s)
projects if you take this on right now
[33:18] (1998.04s)
or they're going to enable something
[33:20] (2000.44s)
that the product couldn't do before so
[33:22] (2002.84s)
that to me like I heard this a lot of oh
[33:25] (2005.64s)
it's up to you to find the scope and was
[33:27] (2007.96s)
like that's not a cool thing where am I
[33:30] (2010.64s)
going to find this scope and it like
[33:32] (2012.44s)
turns out that it is in the sort of
[33:36] (2016.04s)
either archaeology or Discovery in the
[33:38] (2018.72s)
code or whatever or not even code like
[33:41] (2021.96s)
in product requirements that you like
[33:45] (2025.08s)
find that there is a gap and one of the
[33:48] (2028.04s)
big things that I've done throughout my
[33:49] (2029.44s)
career that sometimes help sometimes
[33:51] (2031.24s)
doesn't is be the one that puts my hand
[33:53] (2033.28s)
up when no one else will it's a this old
[33:56] (2036.08s)
rickety system it sucks no one wants to
[33:58] (2038.76s)
work on it we should probably turn it
[34:00] (2040.48s)
off and it's oh you know what actually
[34:02] (2042.44s)
that's generating hundreds of millions
[34:04] (2044.44s)
of dollars in Revenue we probably
[34:05] (2045.76s)
shouldn't turn it off we should probably
[34:08] (2048.12s)
find like Strangler fig pattern to
[34:10] (2050.72s)
gradually replace it with something
[34:12] (2052.32s)
modern or whatever but no we're not
[34:14] (2054.36s)
going to give up on this system or leave
[34:17] (2057.44s)
it to the analysts to try to keep it
[34:19] (2059.80s)
running like it matters so those sorts
[34:22] (2062.64s)
of things again sometimes you get stuck
[34:25] (2065.40s)
with something awful when you are doing
[34:27] (2067.92s)
that but yeah anyway we'll be done yeah
[34:30] (2070.32s)
actually I'll use that as a transition
[34:31] (2071.60s)
point to the next question but just Lee
[34:33] (2073.56s)
I love what you said I feel like one way
[34:35] (2075.92s)
of summarizing that is if you're asking
[34:38] (2078.72s)
yourself the question how do I find
[34:41] (2081.52s)
scope to justify my promotion to staff
[34:43] (2083.84s)
engineer I feel like you've already lost
[34:46] (2086.12s)
but that's the wrong question to ask the
[34:48] (2088.20s)
correct question to ask is what are the
[34:50] (2090.44s)
most burning problems in this or what is
[34:53] (2093.36s)
the top of- mind concern for my manager
[34:55] (2095.44s)
director other Engineers on the team and
[34:57] (2097.84s)
can I build something or figure out a
[35:01] (2101.12s)
solution to this problem that will help
[35:03] (2103.24s)
everyone and you can derive from that
[35:06] (2106.32s)
the necessary scope to get promoted but
[35:08] (2108.40s)
if you start with hey how can I be like
[35:10] (2110.84s)
The Village Idiot stumbling around to
[35:13] (2113.20s)
find scope you're probably not going to
[35:14] (2114.28s)
find it it's like building a startup in
[35:16] (2116.76s)
some ways you don't go out and say like
[35:19] (2119.40s)
where what is the problem like you don't
[35:22] (2122.08s)
start with a solution you start with the
[35:23] (2123.68s)
problem and then from there you derive
[35:25] (2125.32s)
the solution so you don't start with
[35:26] (2126.84s)
okay what is the someone a bill it
[35:28] (2128.96s)
should be educated by the people you
[35:31] (2131.00s)
talk to and part of talking to people is
[35:34] (2134.08s)
relationship building right like you
[35:35] (2135.32s)
have to be pretty embedded in the
[35:37] (2137.32s)
organization to figure out what those
[35:39] (2139.84s)
problems are and so that's the next
[35:41] (2141.40s)
question I wanted to bring up at the end
[35:43] (2143.00s)
of the day in a big Tech organization we
[35:45] (2145.40s)
have to be honest that there is some
[35:47] (2147.00s)
level of politics that when you go in
[35:49] (2149.08s)
for your performance review you have to
[35:50] (2150.64s)
get a review from someone you might have
[35:53] (2153.48s)
mentored maybe someone who's a tech lead
[35:55] (2155.44s)
or a manager on the team and they going
[35:56] (2156.92s)
to talk about hey here here's what Ryan
[35:58] (2158.36s)
did in the past six months and here's
[36:00] (2160.44s)
why it was exceptional he should get
[36:01] (2161.72s)
promoted or whatever the the phrasing
[36:04] (2164.24s)
might be and so I'm curious for all of
[36:05] (2165.68s)
you how deliberate were you about that
[36:08] (2168.32s)
relationship building in terms of hey
[36:10] (2170.40s)
I'm going to find someone who I can
[36:11] (2171.60s)
mentor and they're going to write good
[36:12] (2172.68s)
things about me in my performance review
[36:14] (2174.44s)
or vice versa like here is a director
[36:16] (2176.48s)
who I really want to impress that can
[36:18] (2178.40s)
say good things about me performance
[36:19] (2179.60s)
review either upward or downward I'm
[36:22] (2182.00s)
curious how you all thought about
[36:23] (2183.12s)
relationship building it's the most
[36:25] (2185.04s)
important thing you can do man down at
[36:28] (2188.16s)
least in my experience how did you go
[36:29] (2189.88s)
about doing that Carly were there one-on
[36:31] (2191.76s)
ones that you set up recurring with
[36:33] (2193.00s)
different people or how did you um
[36:34] (2194.84s)
identify people who you wanted to really
[36:36] (2196.20s)
build that relationship with usually
[36:38] (2198.08s)
it's people that I interact with who I
[36:40] (2200.64s)
think we have some sort of common
[36:42] (2202.16s)
approach or common problem and we end up
[36:44] (2204.36s)
sinking up trying to solve something
[36:46] (2206.16s)
together I will say that at my current
[36:48] (2208.60s)
organization I have people that I would
[36:50] (2210.52s)
probably consider friends all over the
[36:52] (2212.40s)
org in various business units people I
[36:54] (2214.72s)
probably don't even talk to every single
[36:56] (2216.40s)
day or interact with on a daily basis
[36:59] (2219.28s)
through my normal work and people are
[37:01] (2221.36s)
always surprised to say oh I didn't know
[37:03] (2223.32s)
and I'm like I know [ __ ] but that's
[37:05] (2225.56s)
part of it right but if you want to be
[37:07] (2227.68s)
seen as an expert within your
[37:09] (2229.28s)
organization people need to know who you
[37:11] (2231.52s)
are around the whole of w and like if
[37:13] (2233.64s)
you hide all day if you're remote way
[37:16] (2236.48s)
harder I love working remote but I got
[37:18] (2238.32s)
to say doing that while I've been remote
[37:20] (2240.76s)
full-time at after since I started was
[37:22] (2242.76s)
significantly more difficult than when I
[37:24] (2244.68s)
was in a in an office
[37:26] (2246.52s)
for so it was extremely intentional it
[37:29] (2249.40s)
was Finding commonalities with people
[37:31] (2251.48s)
striking up friendships like the day Bly
[37:33] (2253.84s)
if you don't have people you can like
[37:35] (2255.04s)
[ __ ] talk with on slack too so a lot of
[37:37] (2257.32s)
it is just for fun because what are we
[37:39] (2259.40s)
all here doing if not trying to get
[37:41] (2261.28s)
through our day but then those people
[37:43] (2263.32s)
are the ones that you can rely on when
[37:44] (2264.76s)
you need something and they know that
[37:46] (2266.16s)
they can rely on you as well and so if
[37:48] (2268.40s)
you're super introverted I totally get
[37:50] (2270.88s)
it i' say that I'm probably an
[37:52] (2272.68s)
introverted extrovert you need to go
[37:54] (2274.80s)
against every fiber in your being that's
[37:56] (2276.32s)
telling you like don't talk to this
[37:57] (2277.68s)
person don't DM them don't bother them
[37:59] (2279.64s)
they don't want to talk to you and
[38:01] (2281.36s)
really try to build bir relationships CU
[38:03] (2283.48s)
you're never going to thrive in your
[38:04] (2284.76s)
career if nobody knows who you are
[38:06] (2286.56s)
because who is going to step up and say
[38:08] (2288.44s)
that you're great at at anything that
[38:10] (2290.60s)
person doesn't exist no one's going to
[38:11] (2291.96s)
come to your rescue and see you heads
[38:14] (2294.68s)
down at 10 p.m. on slack just cuz your
[38:17] (2297.60s)
little thing is green and say holy moly
[38:20] (2300.32s)
Zach deserves a promotion no they're
[38:22] (2302.20s)
going to say Zach deserves a promotion
[38:23] (2303.72s)
because everyone knows that he's a rock
[38:25] (2305.20s)
star because in every meeting he's
[38:26] (2306.52s)
absolutely killing it is delivering he's
[38:28] (2308.36s)
showing up delivering his timelines
[38:30] (2310.44s)
everything is on scope everything is
[38:31] (2311.96s)
within budget right like all of those
[38:34] (2314.12s)
things come to the table and you need
[38:35] (2315.84s)
those people crouching for you so
[38:37] (2317.88s)
thinking that someone's going to save
[38:39] (2319.28s)
you is the wrong approach and I see a
[38:41] (2321.28s)
lot of people doing that like one day
[38:42] (2322.92s)
they'll notice me right no if only I put
[38:45] (2325.96s)
in another 70h hour week for sure will
[38:49] (2329.36s)
know that I'm full person always metal
[38:52] (2332.56s)
or trophy like yeah your code will not
[38:55] (2335.12s)
speak for itself your code will not
[38:57] (2337.48s)
speak for itself yeah yeah when it comes
[39:00] (2340.92s)
to networking or getting people to know
[39:03] (2343.24s)
your work I did a really bad job of
[39:06] (2346.44s)
going to happy hours and I think even
[39:08] (2348.56s)
when we were in person and building
[39:11] (2351.00s)
relationships I didn't do a super good
[39:13] (2353.88s)
job but my work was very visible and I I
[39:17] (2357.92s)
got the promotion even during covid so I
[39:20] (2360.40s)
think this might apply for people who
[39:21] (2361.88s)
are asking about how to get promotion
[39:24] (2364.16s)
while remote and really the number one
[39:26] (2366.92s)
thing is that you communicate your work
[39:30] (2370.12s)
the plan get Buy in you tell people how
[39:34] (2374.04s)
great the results were I know in Ideal
[39:37] (2377.04s)
World you just have impact you don't
[39:38] (2378.88s)
need to tell people for it to matter but
[39:41] (2381.96s)
that's not how prussians work people
[39:44] (2384.16s)
need to know who you are how good your
[39:46] (2386.52s)
work was that's why communication and
[39:49] (2389.68s)
writing are really exceptional tools if
[39:52] (2392.64s)
you're looking to grow your career
[39:54] (2394.56s)
because it's not enough to quietly have
[39:58] (2398.00s)
and in theory if you are do make doing
[40:00] (2400.96s)
such a good job your work will Market
[40:03] (2403.28s)
itself but it's always helpful to put
[40:05] (2405.80s)
the extra work your your code and your
[40:08] (2408.40s)
work cannot Advocate on your behalf to
[40:11] (2411.88s)
people like maybe if it's an internal
[40:14] (2414.32s)
tool people are using it and your name
[40:15] (2415.84s)
is on it like maybe but maybe your
[40:18] (2418.92s)
manager can be your cheerleader but
[40:20] (2420.64s)
eventually you're going to run out like
[40:23] (2423.60s)
they will not be able to do it for you
[40:25] (2425.72s)
anymore for me like being known is been
[40:32] (2432.00s)
the biggest difference between stuck at
[40:35] (2435.40s)
L5 never going to get anywhere to I'm
[40:39] (2439.24s)
pulling together Android Engineers from
[40:41] (2441.68s)
across Amazon asking if they've had the
[40:43] (2443.56s)
same problem giving them the data on
[40:45] (2445.68s)
when their app is about to run out of
[40:47] (2447.36s)
methods and saying we've got to fix this
[40:50] (2450.20s)
does anyone else have anything okay
[40:51] (2451.72s)
reader team you moved Lucine to a
[40:55] (2455.20s)
separate deex file so you could use that
[40:57] (2457.08s)
but that's the only thing and you only
[40:58] (2458.44s)
did it like this and it's super
[41:00] (2460.00s)
self-contained okay cool that's one step
[41:02] (2462.80s)
but what else are we going to do and
[41:04] (2464.72s)
then whenever there's something going on
[41:06] (2466.76s)
it's oh hey yeah I know who's on the App
[41:08] (2468.88s)
Store that worked on that go talk to
[41:10] (2470.48s)
them being able to be the person people
[41:13] (2473.48s)
go to and if you don't know the answer
[41:15] (2475.92s)
you can give them a single step from you
[41:18] (2478.20s)
to the answer that's incredibly useful
[41:21] (2481.76s)
and this sounds like oh you're just like
[41:24] (2484.44s)
being a social butterfly no like human
[41:27] (2487.40s)
relationships are all there is none of
[41:29] (2489.32s)
this matters without that whether it's
[41:31] (2491.20s)
the relationship with our customers our
[41:33] (2493.04s)
users our co-workers those that we
[41:35] (2495.48s)
supporting that are you know underneath
[41:37] (2497.68s)
us whether we're managers or not like
[41:40] (2500.08s)
that is all that matters no one is going
[41:41] (2501.96s)
to remember that cool for Loop you wrote
[41:44] (2504.28s)
10 years from now they're going to
[41:46] (2506.12s)
remember the time that like you
[41:47] (2507.52s)
introduced them to the right person to
[41:49] (2509.36s)
get them the opportunity that they
[41:51] (2511.48s)
needed or that you gave them the advice
[41:53] (2513.56s)
that avoided them like getting stuck in
[41:56] (2516.08s)
a horrible project like that's what
[41:58] (2518.80s)
matters it is all people so for me like
[42:01] (2521.76s)
I am remote I didn't go and visit when I
[42:05] (2525.76s)
was at meta at all and I failed like I
[42:09] (2529.00s)
did not succeed there I had decent
[42:11] (2531.56s)
relationships with the people I was
[42:12] (2532.88s)
supporting and they thought I was a cool
[42:14] (2534.76s)
person but it didn't matter like I
[42:16] (2536.36s)
didn't have the visibility I didn't have
[42:18] (2538.60s)
the relationships I didn't have the
[42:19] (2539.88s)
relationships once things started going
[42:22] (2542.00s)
bad to get the help I needed to dig my
[42:24] (2544.32s)
way out I had a mentor and was like what
[42:28] (2548.28s)
you're doing is great I don't know why
[42:30] (2550.40s)
the team is like this and that was it I
[42:32] (2552.48s)
didn't have anyone else meeting people I
[42:35] (2555.92s)
will say this is also like a scaling
[42:38] (2558.24s)
thing where we've talked about going
[42:39] (2559.96s)
broad I've started like when I was at
[42:43] (2563.80s)
Amazon with my own team asking one like
[42:47] (2567.24s)
off-topic question every day during the
[42:49] (2569.88s)
pandemic and now since then that hybrid
[42:52] (2572.36s)
and remote work is normal just so we
[42:54] (2574.72s)
have something to talk about just so
[42:56] (2576.60s)
we're like engaging with each other
[42:58] (2578.40s)
socially and now I've moved from the
[43:01] (2581.32s)
chat organization to the Gmail
[43:03] (2583.16s)
organization all of the chat
[43:04] (2584.88s)
organization and all of Gmail front end
[43:07] (2587.40s)
I now in two different rooms ask this
[43:10] (2590.32s)
question every day and engage with
[43:12] (2592.36s)
people I will run into people when I'm
[43:14] (2594.60s)
in Sunny Veil hey you're the question
[43:18] (2598.28s)
person hell yeah I'm the question person
[43:20] (2600.72s)
you don't know anything else about me
[43:22] (2602.20s)
you don't even know I'm a software
[43:23] (2603.36s)
engineer but my name and if I came to
[43:26] (2606.52s)
you I was like hey you're a PM in the
[43:30] (2610.56s)
spaces org and I need help with this
[43:33] (2613.12s)
they'd be like oh yeah I know you let's
[43:35] (2615.16s)
talk and not find a Time on my calendar
[43:37] (2617.16s)
next month so it does not have to be
[43:40] (2620.04s)
that you are working on a project
[43:41] (2621.72s)
together that you build a relationship
[43:43] (2623.76s)
with someone like you can say like to a
[43:47] (2627.00s)
manager hey is there anyone on your team
[43:48] (2628.76s)
that needs a mentor like even if the
[43:51] (2631.88s)
answer is no you asking that question
[43:54] (2634.48s)
changed how they think about you like
[43:57] (2637.12s)
you going and hanging out with the PMS
[43:59] (2639.76s)
at one meeting during their Summit just
[44:02] (2642.12s)
to understand their process and see if
[44:04] (2644.60s)
you can contribute and say hey if you
[44:06] (2646.72s)
had a Dev representative here it might
[44:08] (2648.48s)
be really helpful or if you like at this
[44:10] (2650.76s)
stage brought someone in it could change
[44:13] (2653.16s)
the way that we approach like writing
[44:15] (2655.08s)
our stories or whatever process you use
[44:17] (2657.84s)
and then all the PMS are like that's a
[44:20] (2660.04s)
cool person I like them and it has
[44:23] (2663.32s)
changed the dynamic and changed your
[44:25] (2665.08s)
sort of social cache and a sign ific way
[44:27] (2667.96s)
and I know some people are like this
[44:30] (2670.08s)
sounds like politics or playing a game
[44:34] (2674.00s)
and what I will say is maybe it does and
[44:37] (2677.28s)
it's not all bad sometimes you have to
[44:40] (2680.80s)
play the game and playing games is fun
[44:44] (2684.36s)
sometimes I will also note that I am an
[44:46] (2686.92s)
autistic person and I have lots of
[44:50] (2690.32s)
Social Challenges and yet I have found
[44:53] (2693.88s)
out that if I don't do this I cannot
[44:56] (2696.32s)
succeed I've got to figure it out and
[44:58] (2698.80s)
sometimes I figure that out by finding
[45:00] (2700.60s)
ways to be a weirdo and bringing people
[45:02] (2702.96s)
into the weirdness that works to just do
[45:06] (2706.76s)
make friends
[45:08] (2708.20s)
Weir there's so much I want to add two
[45:10] (2710.76s)
things there's so much good knowledge
[45:12] (2712.68s)
being dropped here if you all are
[45:14] (2714.16s)
getting value out of this just to give
[45:15] (2715.40s)
us some feedback can you just drop a
[45:17] (2717.20s)
reaction a thumbs up just to let us know
[45:19] (2719.48s)
if this resonating two things I want to
[45:21] (2721.76s)
add to so much good stuff that just was
[45:24] (2724.40s)
said one thing that Lee mentioned I
[45:27] (2727.08s)
think a good litmus test for if you are
[45:29] (2729.64s)
getting staff level or any kind of
[45:32] (2732.48s)
seniority in your company is if I go to
[45:34] (2734.88s)
your teammate and say hey what are what
[45:37] (2737.04s)
is this person what is Ryan known for in
[45:39] (2739.60s)
the team or in the organization and they
[45:41] (2741.52s)
can't tell me cohesively okay here's
[45:43] (2743.60s)
what Ryan did here's what Lee did here's
[45:45] (2745.16s)
what Carly did that's a bad sign like
[45:47] (2747.60s)
they should say oh Ryan is the person
[45:49] (2749.08s)
he's the expert on this system if I have
[45:50] (2750.72s)
a question about that I have a bug I
[45:51] (2751.88s)
have a concern he can help me out that
[45:54] (2754.36s)
is I think a really good way of of
[45:56] (2756.36s)
evaluating if you've built up that brand
[45:58] (2758.84s)
that credibility among your team or or
[46:01] (2761.12s)
so I think that's one thing I want to
[46:02] (2762.44s)
call out the other thing is there were a
[46:05] (2765.12s)
couple comments like Sean said what
[46:06] (2766.68s)
happened to modesty in this day and age
[46:08] (2768.56s)
so my rebuttal to that Sean is don't
[46:12] (2772.20s)
think of this as self-promotion like I
[46:14] (2774.24s)
did this project let me go tell everyone
[46:15] (2775.80s)
how awesome I am that's not the right
[46:17] (2777.32s)
way to view it in my opinion the correct
[46:19] (2779.48s)
way to view it is hey the work I've done
[46:23] (2783.08s)
has value to you as my teammate I can
[46:25] (2785.12s)
make your life better I can make the
[46:26] (2786.40s)
company moreone money I can make our end
[46:28] (2788.44s)
users happier and experience your bug
[46:30] (2790.84s)
there's value in the work I'm doing and
[46:33] (2793.48s)
therefore I would like you to be in
[46:35] (2795.72s)
informed of how you can benefit from my
[46:37] (2797.68s)
work for example this debug ability
[46:39] (2799.32s)
thing that I built at meta was a big
[46:41] (2801.68s)
part of my promotion I built a tool that
[46:43] (2803.92s)
improved how quickly you could debug
[46:45] (2805.64s)
issues in the product I worked on when I
[46:47] (2807.72s)
went and went out and talked about it I
[46:49] (2809.20s)
said hey here's a tool that will make
[46:50] (2810.52s)
your life easier and in fact I have a
[46:53] (2813.04s)
way for you to also get impact on your
[46:55] (2815.08s)
performance review this going to help
[46:56] (2816.64s)
you and it'll help the product it'll
[46:58] (2818.08s)
help everyone and so one way to think
[47:00] (2820.12s)
about it is what is a call to action
[47:02] (2822.20s)
you're not going out just to Pat
[47:03] (2823.40s)
yourself on the B you're trying to go
[47:04] (2824.88s)
out there and say hey here are ways you
[47:06] (2826.56s)
can get plugged in here are ways that
[47:08] (2828.40s)
you can help yourself or you can help
[47:09] (2829.84s)
the team and if happens to be the work
[47:12] (2832.32s)
that I did because the work I did is
[47:13] (2833.76s)
valuable and I want to tell you about it
[47:15] (2835.96s)
so that's how I would reframe this idea
[47:17] (2837.76s)
of self-promotion I can tell you're a
[47:19] (2839.88s)
startup founder you were made for it I
[47:23] (2843.72s)
completely support sex work so this
[47:25] (2845.80s)
isn't a negative thing but you sharing
[47:28] (2848.40s)
knowledge is not prostitution you
[47:31] (2851.00s)
sharing knowledge has Mutual benefit it
[47:34] (2854.68s)
helps everyone for you to say this is
[47:37] (2857.76s)
the thing I did it was hard when I tried
[47:40] (2860.40s)
it this way and it only worked when I
[47:42] (2862.44s)
did this I ran into a problem over here
[47:45] (2865.80s)
and this is how I solved it if you need
[47:47] (2867.88s)
to build something like this the like
[47:50] (2870.04s)
the first thing I did was build a lower
[47:51] (2871.76s)
level framework for it that you can
[47:53] (2873.24s)
share like changes the usefulness of
[47:56] (2876.52s)
your work it is not like Shameless
[48:00] (2880.32s)
bragging you're not like wearing a metal
[48:04] (2884.00s)
yeah you can wear a metal if you want
[48:05] (2885.36s)
but like you are not just doing it to
[48:07] (2887.56s)
show off you're doing it because it
[48:09] (2889.84s)
matters and like your work is important
[48:12] (2892.72s)
yeah and you're preventing future pain
[48:14] (2894.36s)
too it's I don't know I feel like
[48:16] (2896.00s)
sometimes Engineers feel like the only
[48:17] (2897.52s)
way to learn things is the hard way
[48:19] (2899.24s)
through debugging and crying and if you
[48:21] (2901.24s)
share your knowledge there's another way
[48:23] (2903.08s)
that you can maybe teach people right
[48:24] (2904.88s)
you can teach people through all sorts
[48:26] (2906.92s)
different ways and i' I definitely think
[48:28] (2908.80s)
that's a big thing where it's okay are
[48:30] (2910.28s)
you I think that there's a difference
[48:31] (2911.56s)
here it's an interesting line between
[48:33] (2913.60s)
like bragging and teaching where it's I
[48:35] (2915.48s)
think that's the line that some people
[48:36] (2916.80s)
like feel like they might be Crossing
[48:38] (2918.76s)
sometimes as an engineer but it's I know
[48:40] (2920.48s)
if you ever do a lunch and learn when
[48:41] (2921.96s)
you're teaching people stuff like
[48:43] (2923.40s)
there's going to be Engineers who don't
[48:44] (2924.84s)
know this stuff I I know whenever I did
[48:46] (2926.56s)
the lunch and learns when I sat in on
[48:48] (2928.16s)
them I'm like wow I just learned like 10
[48:50] (2930.20s)
things and it's and most Engineers are C
[48:53] (2933.40s)
curious open-minded T tenacious people
[48:56] (2936.44s)
cuz it's if you're in big Tech you they
[48:58] (2938.36s)
select for those traits a lot of the
[49:00] (2940.20s)
time so they're going to want to hear
[49:02] (2942.04s)
what you have to say anyways let you
[49:03] (2943.92s)
learn someone can be doing a demo and
[49:05] (2945.88s)
that they have a browser extension that
[49:07] (2947.68s)
makes it so much easier and like what
[49:09] (2949.56s)
the hell where did you and they're like
[49:11] (2951.92s)
oh yeah I wrote that thing I only use it
[49:13] (2953.52s)
and it's like you post it can you share
[49:15] (2955.56s)
that because that's rad like you just
[49:18] (2958.48s)
like someone's sharing their screen for
[49:20] (2960.48s)
15 minutes can change the way you look
[49:23] (2963.00s)
at doing work and they like they may not
[49:26] (2966.40s)
know what it's a cool thing so I don't
[49:28] (2968.36s)
know there's lots of ways that like
[49:30] (2970.24s)
sharing is caring and they'll do it cool
[49:33] (2973.64s)
so we have half an hour left okay so
[49:35] (2975.68s)
here's what I'm thinking I have one more
[49:36] (2976.96s)
question I'd love to get your input on
[49:38] (2978.76s)
we can try and keep it relatively short
[49:40] (2980.16s)
maybe five or six minutes and then for
[49:42] (2982.12s)
the remaining 20 25 minutes I'd love to
[49:44] (2984.72s)
open up to the audience and see if
[49:47] (2987.04s)
there's a burning question we can answer
[49:48] (2988.44s)
from the crowd but the question last
[49:50] (2990.60s)
question on my end is what heuristics
[49:53] (2993.76s)
can you tell us about that optimizing
[49:56] (2996.84s)
chance for promotion especially the
[49:58] (2998.92s)
staff level engineer and what I mean by
[50:00] (3000.36s)
that is when you think about a team or
[50:03] (3003.40s)
an or which is likely to get you
[50:05] (3005.36s)
promoted do you think about oh I want to
[50:07] (3007.24s)
go to a team which is very Junior heavy
[50:09] (3009.12s)
very senior heavy small large team how
[50:11] (3011.72s)
about infrastructure team versus product
[50:13] (3013.48s)
team that's a really interesting thing
[50:15] (3015.12s)
where I think a lot of people in
[50:16] (3016.44s)
Industry talk about how there's a
[50:18] (3018.48s)
frontend feeling it's actually harder to
[50:20] (3020.68s)
have multiplicative impact when you're
[50:22] (3022.16s)
doing a widget on the Android app
[50:24] (3024.04s)
compared to If You're Building backend
[50:25] (3025.68s)
infrastructure WI impacting hundreds of
[50:28] (3028.00s)
Engineers so I'm curious for each of you
[50:30] (3030.76s)
what heuristics do you have to think
[50:32] (3032.68s)
about where it's more likely to get that
[50:35] (3035.96s)
staff level promotion talk to someone
[50:38] (3038.48s)
that's above staff level senior staff or
[50:40] (3040.56s)
principal ask them what in this or they
[50:43] (3043.16s)
would fix if they had more time and then
[50:46] (3046.88s)
do that they know where the problems are
[50:51] (3051.88s)
they don't have the time to do all of it
[50:54] (3054.00s)
you fix a problem that they had a
[50:55] (3055.72s)
problem with and and you have a
[50:57] (3057.64s)
principal writing support on your promo
[51:00] (3060.40s)
document that's going to go a long way
[51:03] (3063.20s)
beyond that find out what's missing
[51:06] (3066.44s)
submit a document before it's ready or
[51:08] (3068.80s)
at least have people that are on the
[51:10] (3070.84s)
Committees that review them or managers
[51:12] (3072.76s)
that review them whatever the process is
[51:14] (3074.48s)
at your company write your doc right now
[51:17] (3077.32s)
not when you think it's ready write it
[51:19] (3079.48s)
right now and take it to people and say
[51:22] (3082.48s)
why would you reject this and then start
[51:25] (3085.48s)
working on that
[51:27] (3087.40s)
you may not be able to like get that
[51:30] (3090.04s)
work right away your manager may not buy
[51:32] (3092.08s)
in on it whatever but if you don't know
[51:34] (3094.68s)
what you're missing and you think this
[51:36] (3096.84s)
project that you're about to work on is
[51:38] (3098.28s)
your promo project and you do it and
[51:40] (3100.64s)
it's not you're going to be pissed and
[51:43] (3103.00s)
it's your fault you didn't find out
[51:45] (3105.36s)
beforehand if it's actually matters and
[51:48] (3108.24s)
if you were actually missing it so find
[51:50] (3110.40s)
out oh you know what no all the projects
[51:52] (3112.64s)
you've done are great but we've never
[51:53] (3113.84s)
seen you lead anyone we've never seen
[51:55] (3115.40s)
you present anything then you're like oh
[51:57] (3117.60s)
[ __ ] like this next project I don't need
[51:59] (3119.76s)
to write a bunch of code I need to be
[52:02] (3122.28s)
the one that makes it better and makes
[52:04] (3124.20s)
it sure it's on time and that other
[52:06] (3126.56s)
people say yeah they we were able to
[52:08] (3128.88s)
knock that out of the park because this
[52:10] (3130.40s)
person was leading it but if you're
[52:12] (3132.28s)
going blind you will not figure out you
[52:15] (3135.84s)
will not hoen your way into the
[52:17] (3137.60s)
promotion like the process itself is
[52:20] (3140.96s)
beastly and if you don't understand it
[52:23] (3143.20s)
you're not going to get promoted and if
[52:25] (3145.04s)
you think I'm not a manager I don't need
[52:26] (3146.60s)
to understand it then you probably
[52:28] (3148.44s)
aren't going to get promoted unless your
[52:30] (3150.08s)
manager is an incredible person and that
[52:33] (3153.28s)
happens sometimes but that is luck that
[52:35] (3155.80s)
is not something that you can affect I
[52:38] (3158.76s)
think we all wish we were our for now I
[52:41] (3161.88s)
do I follow churn that's my jam at every
[52:45] (3165.24s)
company of work that I always do those
[52:47] (3167.12s)
are were my projects I over induct them
[52:49] (3169.32s)
R though paino in the business always so
[52:52] (3172.84s)
dealing with churn for most of the
[52:54] (3174.80s)
companies I've been at we rely on
[52:56] (3176.60s)
subscribers users whatever so yeah I
[52:59] (3179.44s)
always try to solve something related to
[53:01] (3181.92s)
sure something Financial for the
[53:03] (3183.40s)
business and that's where I've always go
[53:05] (3185.72s)
I think for me I think that there's a
[53:07] (3187.24s)
couple different characteristics that I
[53:08] (3188.68s)
like to think about like for if you're
[53:11] (3191.24s)
going to get promoted and all that stuff
[53:13] (3193.24s)
I always think that the number one her
[53:14] (3194.64s)
istic that Rahul like I think is missing
[53:16] (3196.96s)
here is your relationship with your
[53:18] (3198.36s)
manager if you don't have a good
[53:20] (3200.04s)
relationship with your manager like it's
[53:21] (3201.40s)
going to be hard it's just going to even
[53:22] (3202.72s)
if you're the most Rockstar amazing guy
[53:24] (3204.56s)
ever like it's not going to happen I but
[53:27] (3207.72s)
like when I think about like big team
[53:29] (3209.00s)
small team stuff like that data
[53:30] (3210.16s)
engineering has a different perspective
[53:31] (3211.64s)
here a little bit where it's the data
[53:33] (3213.12s)
sets that you're using and creating as a
[53:35] (3215.20s)
data engineer like there better be like
[53:37] (3217.68s)
30 other pipelines that read from it if
[53:40] (3220.04s)
there's not it's not going to be theft
[53:41] (3221.68s)
level engineer you got to have you're
[53:43] (3223.64s)
not creating like the data set that is
[53:46] (3226.24s)
used to make a viz you need to be making
[53:48] (3228.68s)
the data set that then everyone else
[53:50] (3230.60s)
makes other data sets with like you got
[53:52] (3232.36s)
to create that Master data if you're not
[53:54] (3234.56s)
creating Master data you're not a staff
[53:56] (3236.16s)
engineer a staff data engineer and you
[53:58] (3238.64s)
might be a staff analytics engineer if
[54:00] (3240.32s)
you do things end to end where you do
[54:01] (3241.96s)
logging to data set to viz and you and
[54:05] (3245.04s)
and maybe ml model and you have all four
[54:07] (3247.00s)
of those and you go more horizontally
[54:09] (3249.20s)
like that then that's another way that
[54:10] (3250.92s)
you can potentially be like staff level
[54:13] (3253.56s)
but at least for like the data engineer
[54:16] (3256.24s)
family if you aren't creating Master
[54:18] (3258.00s)
data and not not servicing a lot of
[54:20] (3260.00s)
teams with that Master data like you're
[54:22] (3262.24s)
probably not at that staff level yet and
[54:25] (3265.44s)
for me I I withraw the hero stics from
[54:28] (3268.24s)
the rubric that everyone uses to discuss
[54:30] (3270.52s)
what is staff and higher scope and
[54:33] (3273.80s)
typically like when we talk about those
[54:35] (3275.32s)
projects there's three characteristics
[54:37] (3277.60s)
like typically how large is the size of
[54:39] (3279.88s)
the work stream it's usually Quantified
[54:41] (3281.92s)
with the number of Engineers involved
[54:43] (3283.48s)
the duration the complexity of the work
[54:45] (3285.88s)
stream can someone in the level below
[54:48] (3288.00s)
you not solve that problem for some
[54:50] (3290.48s)
reason whether like some specific domain
[54:53] (3293.40s)
expertise on distributed systems or AI
[54:56] (3296.64s)
or something like that and then the last
[54:58] (3298.56s)
thing is like the actual impact of the
[55:00] (3300.36s)
effort is it Banning multiple teams is
[55:03] (3303.16s)
it achieving like significant business
[55:05] (3305.52s)
goals for the ore and so the reason that
[55:07] (3307.52s)
I mentioned this is because I think like
[55:10] (3310.56s)
what Zach was mentioning is like talking
[55:12] (3312.72s)
about getting leverage by building data
[55:14] (3314.68s)
sets that everyone else is using that
[55:17] (3317.16s)
means that this is going to have a lot
[55:18] (3318.68s)
more impact because you're making one
[55:20] (3320.92s)
data set here and then everyone's
[55:22] (3322.12s)
building on top of it so you're one
[55:23] (3323.76s)
level will higher up in this you know
[55:25] (3325.48s)
leveraged impact that you can get if
[55:27] (3327.36s)
there's opportunities for you to build
[55:29] (3329.20s)
things that are enabling others to build
[55:32] (3332.36s)
on top of them that's going to get you
[55:34] (3334.44s)
more of that leverage impact or if
[55:35] (3335.92s)
you're building tooling or anything like
[55:37] (3337.64s)
that so that will bias a little bit more
[55:40] (3340.56s)
towards the infrastructure teams if
[55:42] (3342.36s)
you're going that route if you're trying
[55:44] (3344.56s)
to go for like the workstream size route
[55:47] (3347.32s)
there's limited spot for that if you
[55:48] (3348.80s)
want to be the main lead in charge of
[55:50] (3350.76s)
this massive product initiative let's
[55:53] (3353.48s)
say that's 50 people involved there's
[55:55] (3355.36s)
only one spot for that top person to be
[55:57] (3357.76s)
the you know main Tech lead so those
[56:00] (3360.36s)
roles are a little the senior engineer
[56:02] (3362.44s)
and not like a staff or principal
[56:03] (3363.92s)
engineer that gets picked to do that
[56:06] (3366.68s)
like why would they trust you with it
[56:08] (3368.40s)
and maybe you've built up the like
[56:10] (3370.52s)
credentials and maybe you've built up
[56:12] (3372.32s)
the trust but you're like right there at
[56:14] (3374.88s)
the promotion Point like you probably
[56:16] (3376.52s)
don't need that project to get promoted
[56:18] (3378.24s)
if they're willing to hand it to you I
[56:19] (3379.88s)
don't know that's a rough one yeah
[56:21] (3381.96s)
exactly those types of promotions
[56:24] (3384.08s)
require permission someone's got to say
[56:25] (3385.84s)
you're the in charge so there's less of
[56:28] (3388.04s)
those roles available and they're harder
[56:30] (3390.12s)
to compete for but there's definitely
[56:32] (3392.16s)
some opportunities but most of these
[56:34] (3394.28s)
really senior Engineers I see are more
[56:35] (3395.96s)
on the infrastructure side or tooling or
[56:38] (3398.60s)
and it's specifically because of that
[56:40] (3400.28s)
leveraged impact if you're building on
[56:42] (3402.04s)
that bottom layer you're making everyone
[56:44] (3404.12s)
better I want to kick it to live
[56:45] (3405.64s)
questions but I just want to say this
[56:47] (3407.24s)
infro thing and backend thing to me is a
[56:50] (3410.72s)
legacy bias we just don't know as much
[56:54] (3414.56s)
what it looks like for people to perform
[56:56] (3416.44s)
at this level in other places we've seen
[56:59] (3419.48s)
what it looks like for backend systems
[57:02] (3422.16s)
to support billions of users and there's
[57:05] (3425.16s)
lots of people that understand that and
[57:06] (3426.68s)
the complexity when you're working on
[57:09] (3429.12s)
it's better now but if 10 years ago you
[57:11] (3431.44s)
were working on an Android app no one
[57:13] (3433.44s)
knew what it looked like for a senior
[57:15] (3435.44s)
staff engineer to be doing that work
[57:17] (3437.52s)
what is the difference between what
[57:18] (3438.96s)
they're doing with this application and
[57:21] (3441.48s)
what someone else would be doing they're
[57:22] (3442.84s)
like tremendously complex apps billions
[57:25] (3445.56s)
of people might be using them but no one
[57:28] (3448.28s)
really quite understands what principal
[57:30] (3450.48s)
front end engineer or something does and
[57:33] (3453.68s)
so if no one can judge it and no one can
[57:35] (3455.84s)
measure it you better switch to a
[57:37] (3457.68s)
backend team so you can get your promo
[57:39] (3459.80s)
which is [ __ ] but it has been a real
[57:43] (3463.36s)
thing so that's very true also in data
[57:45] (3465.36s)
engineering I've noticed that like when
[57:46] (3466.84s)
I was working at Facebook in 2016 there
[57:49] (3469.80s)
was uh one there was one staff data
[57:52] (3472.56s)
engineer now there's tons but this is
[57:54] (3474.80s)
because data engineering was very new
[57:57] (3477.08s)
like data engineering was like maybe 5
[57:59] (3479.64s)
years old at that point in 2016 and so
[58:02] (3482.52s)
there wasn't like a lot of good
[58:04] (3484.48s)
definition of what those roles look like
[58:06] (3486.32s)
and then now there's probably dozens and
[58:08] (3488.64s)
dozens of Staff data engineers at
[58:10] (3490.44s)
Facebook but back then there was
[58:11] (3491.76s)
literally one yeah oh one thing I just
[58:14] (3494.08s)
want to add the the infrastructure bias
[58:16] (3496.36s)
doesn't necessarily mean front end
[58:18] (3498.32s)
versus backend there are Engineers that
[58:20] (3500.92s)
build client side infrastructure like
[58:23] (3503.52s)
maybe the build system that's used on
[58:25] (3505.52s)
Android or maybe there's some framework
[58:28] (3508.20s)
that is used to manage requests between
[58:30] (3510.12s)
the client and server so that could
[58:32] (3512.08s)
still be on the front end but it's still
[58:34] (3514.12s)
infrastructure like product
[58:35] (3515.56s)
infrastructure the key is that you have
[58:37] (3517.88s)
the other Engineers that are leveraging
[58:40] (3520.24s)
what you build and that usually one
[58:42] (3522.36s)
layer lower than the person who's
[58:44] (3524.16s)
building the user facing experience
[58:46] (3526.44s)
unless you're one of those whober techly
[58:48] (3528.12s)
building some new
[58:50] (3530.24s)
product before we open it up to the
[58:53] (3533.12s)
audience anyone else want to mention
[58:54] (3534.84s)
anything otherwise the way it'll work is
[58:57] (3537.76s)
there should be a raise hand
[58:58] (3538.76s)
functionality in Zoom so if you want to
[59:00] (3540.84s)
ask a question you can go ahead now and
[59:03] (3543.12s)
raise your hand hey thank you for the
[59:06] (3546.08s)
discussion um wondering if you have any
[59:09] (3549.80s)
advice I'm already at staff level what
[59:12] (3552.32s)
would you recommend
[59:13] (3553.92s)
to with regard to Performance Management
[59:16] (3556.88s)
I'm finding that exceeding expectations
[59:19] (3559.56s)
at this level is becoming harder and
[59:21] (3561.72s)
harder that's my question I can speak a
[59:24] (3564.56s)
little bit about that that so you're it
[59:26] (3566.48s)
sounds like you're talking about teener
[59:28] (3568.00s)
staff once you get to the staff level
[59:30] (3570.44s)
teor staff and higher the behaviors are
[59:33] (3573.48s)
actually very similar you are
[59:35] (3575.04s)
influencing through others you are
[59:38] (3578.16s)
growing other people around you and
[59:40] (3580.08s)
you're often taking on the largest
[59:42] (3582.16s)
problems in your or the number one thing
[59:44] (3584.24s)
that changes is just that the
[59:45] (3585.56s)
initiatives you take on are one step
[59:47] (3587.48s)
bigger or one step more impactful or
[59:49] (3589.60s)
something like that so it depends on
[59:51] (3591.72s)
your specific or or are you an
[59:53] (3593.64s)
infrastructure engineer or what exactly
[59:56] (3596.36s)
but you just need to do exactly what you
[59:58] (3598.80s)
have been doing and if you are on the
[60:01] (3601.40s)
exceed side as a staff engineer it's
[60:04] (3604.20s)
just a matter of finding something that
[60:06] (3606.16s)
is even larger in scope so instead of
[60:09] (3609.08s)
influencing your group of your or that's
[60:10] (3610.92s)
like maybe 50 people maybe you're um
[60:13] (3613.64s)
influencing across two larger orbs or
[60:16] (3616.28s)
maybe you're building some new
[60:17] (3617.40s)
infrastructure that hundreds of
[60:19] (3619.16s)
Engineers are using instead of maybe
[60:20] (3620.76s)
just like dozens of Engineers so um it's
[60:23] (3623.00s)
just a matter of scaling and taking on
[60:24] (3624.88s)
more scope but it very similar behaviors
[60:27] (3627.44s)
I want to add just a little bit to that
[60:28] (3628.92s)
so before I quit my job at Airbnb I got
[60:31] (3631.72s)
exceeds at the staff level for my last
[60:33] (3633.80s)
like for 2020 and here was the
[60:35] (3635.80s)
perspective that like you want to do to
[60:37] (3637.40s)
think about like the different projects
[60:38] (3638.72s)
that I was working on so if you want to
[60:40] (3640.20s)
get the staff level usually or exceeds
[60:42] (3642.16s)
you're going to want to deliver on like
[60:43] (3643.68s)
your main mey project for me that was
[60:45] (3645.80s)
pricing and availability and getting
[60:47] (3647.20s)
those metrics like really refined really
[60:49] (3649.24s)
good they run your highquality big rock
[60:51] (3651.92s)
project but then you should also be
[60:53] (3653.60s)
working on designs and discussions for
[60:56] (3656.52s)
like longer term things so like one of
[60:58] (3658.24s)
the things I worked on was this document
[61:00] (3660.24s)
on how we should build best practices on
[61:02] (3662.92s)
how to take data from the data Lake and
[61:05] (3665.36s)
put it back into the Airbnb app and the
[61:07] (3667.76s)
best practices around that and getting
[61:10] (3670.08s)
feedback from Principal engineers and
[61:11] (3671.76s)
all the other Engineers like in the
[61:12] (3672.92s)
company to understand like what they're
[61:14] (3674.68s)
what kind of edge cases we could we run
[61:16] (3676.64s)
into and what are the different like use
[61:18] (3678.24s)
cases and patterns that are involved
[61:19] (3679.60s)
there and if you can get one of those
[61:21] (3681.44s)
kind of like higher level architecture
[61:23] (3683.08s)
impacts as well as like just the meaty
[61:26] (3686.32s)
like big rock impact that is like you if
[61:29] (3689.08s)
you don't deliver that you're not going
[61:30] (3690.68s)
to even meet expectations if you can do
[61:32] (3692.96s)
both of those things that's how you're
[61:34] (3694.16s)
going to really get to that next level
[61:35] (3695.80s)
that like senior staff sort of level
[61:38] (3698.32s)
that's great let's move on to
[61:41] (3701.48s)
Alan my question is related to what
[61:43] (3703.96s)
seems to be like the most recurring
[61:45] (3705.36s)
piece of advice Beyond just a sheer
[61:47] (3707.88s)
technical skill which is doing that sort
[61:50] (3710.32s)
of technical communication both to
[61:52] (3712.64s)
people who are non-technical and also
[61:54] (3714.88s)
people who are technical as well as
[61:56] (3716.60s)
building those relationships and
[61:58] (3718.72s)
mentorship and I was wondering if you
[61:59] (3719.88s)
have any advice or resources books
[62:03] (3723.28s)
articles whatever that you found helpful
[62:05] (3725.56s)
for just building that sort of
[62:08] (3728.04s)
communication and finding mentorship
[62:10] (3730.12s)
within your org or without your org that
[62:12] (3732.28s)
makes sense yeah I can I can chime in
[62:15] (3735.16s)
here quickly I think one of the core
[62:18] (3738.44s)
skills of communication is know who
[62:21] (3741.16s)
you're talking to so I'll talk about
[62:24] (3744.32s)
meta or Facebook which is where I was
[62:25] (3745.72s)
from almost 5 years they're a workplace
[62:27] (3747.72s)
group and so one thing that I did before
[62:29] (3749.88s)
I posted any so workplace is basically
[62:31] (3751.56s)
like an internal version of Facebook you
[62:32] (3752.92s)
would post updates about your work and
[62:34] (3754.96s)
keep people informed and so one thing I
[62:36] (3756.96s)
would do before I posted anything is I
[62:38] (3758.64s)
would look through the membership and
[62:40] (3760.32s)
say hey is this workplace primarily
[62:42] (3762.92s)
other Engineers is it the leadership
[62:44] (3764.52s)
team is it a cross functional group of
[62:46] (3766.44s)
marketers and PMs and engineers and
[62:48] (3768.48s)
based on that you should tailor the
[62:50] (3770.36s)
level of depth of your communication to
[62:52] (3772.80s)
accommodate that I think you have to be
[62:55] (3775.88s)
really careful not to go too deep in the
[62:57] (3777.80s)
weeds or too light on the detail either
[63:00] (3780.48s)
extreme is not good depending on who
[63:02] (3782.00s)
you're talking to and so core part of is
[63:04] (3784.48s)
number one research who's in the standup
[63:07] (3787.56s)
or the meeting or the workplace group
[63:09] (3789.08s)
that you're addressing and number two
[63:11] (3791.24s)
understand how much do they know are you
[63:14] (3794.00s)
if there like a PM that you're talking
[63:15] (3795.36s)
to how much do they actually know about
[63:17] (3797.00s)
your work how much do they care and
[63:18] (3798.36s)
based on that you should accommodate or
[63:20] (3800.60s)
message differently I don't really have
[63:22] (3802.60s)
a book or a video recommendation off the
[63:25] (3805.28s)
top of my head I will say just talking
[63:27] (3807.08s)
to people again is really important to
[63:28] (3808.96s)
you because you want to have some
[63:29] (3809.88s)
empathy for where are they coming from
[63:31] (3811.48s)
what are they trying to get done and the
[63:32] (3812.80s)
way you do that is again going back to
[63:34] (3814.24s)
what we talked about 15 minutes is
[63:36] (3816.00s)
relationship building understand who
[63:37] (3817.64s)
they are and how you can help them and
[63:39] (3819.80s)
then if you do that enough you get a
[63:41] (3821.56s)
good sense of the different personas
[63:43] (3823.48s)
that you're talking to I think one thing
[63:45] (3825.44s)
that I just want to add real quick is
[63:47] (3827.84s)
one thing that I noticed that was this
[63:50] (3830.04s)
weird unexpected Synergy for me when I
[63:52] (3832.12s)
was working at Airbnb was so I when I
[63:54] (3834.72s)
worked at Airbnb I made
[63:56] (3836.32s)
a LinkedIn post almost every single day
[63:58] (3838.44s)
and one of the things that you'll learn
[63:59] (3839.68s)
about the LinkedIn algorithm is that uh
[64:02] (3842.64s)
it really rewards conciseness and if you
[64:05] (3845.24s)
can tell people dense information in the
[64:08] (3848.08s)
most concise way possible yeah that is a
[64:11] (3851.16s)
very powerful skill and and it's even
[64:13] (3853.80s)
more than like the level of detail but
[64:15] (3855.56s)
even if you have the level of detail can
[64:17] (3857.36s)
you say it in a way that is still
[64:18] (3858.88s)
concise but detail that is another thing
[64:21] (3861.36s)
that I would highly recommend that you
[64:22] (3862.88s)
can learn to grow from but that's
[64:25] (3865.48s)
another great way to learn let's move on
[64:28] (3868.44s)
sesh hi thank you R for doing all of
[64:31] (3871.40s)
this so my question is you have talked
[64:33] (3873.56s)
about a lot about how impact a staff
[64:36] (3876.24s)
careers can bring in but I am a senior
[64:39] (3879.44s)
software engineer I want to become a
[64:40] (3880.72s)
tech lead soon I want to ask you like
[64:42] (3882.76s)
what will be my progress if I want to go
[64:45] (3885.52s)
to Tech lead first and then probably St
[64:48] (3888.16s)
engineer later yeah I can speak a little
[64:50] (3890.00s)
about this it's interesting that you
[64:51] (3891.32s)
mentioned Tech lead as its own level
[64:53] (3893.48s)
separate from senior and staff because I
[64:56] (3896.24s)
view Tech lead as a set of behaviors
[64:59] (3899.08s)
that can happen across level so there
[65:02] (3902.08s)
are senior Engineers that work on teams
[65:05] (3905.08s)
that are Tech lead they lead smaller
[65:08] (3908.40s)
project but they do everything that you
[65:10] (3910.40s)
expect from a tech it I don't know if
[65:12] (3912.68s)
that answers your question exactly but
[65:14] (3914.32s)
if you're trying to grow from senior you
[65:16] (3916.36s)
can take a look at like your specific
[65:19] (3919.04s)
companies like leveling system and I
[65:21] (3921.12s)
think you'll see that a lot of companies
[65:22] (3922.56s)
Tech leadership is just like a set of
[65:24] (3924.28s)
behaviors that can is orthogonal the the
[65:27] (3927.16s)
level that you're I just want to cut in
[65:29] (3929.36s)
real quick I think that if what you're
[65:31] (3931.08s)
missing if you've gotten feedback and
[65:33] (3933.24s)
what you're missing on promotion is some
[65:36] (3936.00s)
of these leadership things and some of
[65:38] (3938.48s)
these visibility things maybe being a
[65:41] (3941.04s)
tech lead will put you in a position to
[65:42] (3942.80s)
do more of that but it doesn't mean it's
[65:44] (3944.88s)
a stepping stone necessarily like you
[65:48] (3948.00s)
doing those behaviors and being a strong
[65:50] (3950.00s)
Tech lead does not mean you know that
[65:52] (3952.96s)
you're on your way to staff necessarily
[65:56] (3956.24s)
yeah this also shouldn't be like a
[65:58] (3958.44s)
something that's a mystery to anyone
[66:00] (3960.16s)
like Ryan said there should be a
[66:01] (3961.60s)
leveling system at your company or
[66:03] (3963.28s)
behaviors are clearly defined for each
[66:05] (3965.08s)
level and you should be able to look at
[66:06] (3966.64s)
it and have a conversation with your
[66:08] (3968.52s)
manager about where you're exceeding and
[66:10] (3970.00s)
where you're deficient none of us will
[66:11] (3971.92s)
be able to tell you exactly what all of
[66:13] (3973.60s)
those behaviors are most companies
[66:15] (3975.16s)
there's some standards but it might be a
[66:16] (3976.80s)
little bit different and if you don't
[66:19] (3979.68s)
know that for your company that's a
[66:22] (3982.20s)
really good place to start and ask for
[66:24] (3984.84s)
that documentation because you can only
[66:26] (3986.80s)
guess you really need to get that
[66:28] (3988.48s)
outlined for you let's do one last
[66:30] (3990.80s)
question before we each give our
[66:32] (3992.56s)
concluding remarks uh Sam rude hi guys
[66:37] (3997.16s)
nice talking to you all thanks for doing
[66:39] (3999.64s)
this I'm a big fan of Zach data
[66:41] (4001.68s)
engineering is my thing so I want to
[66:44] (4004.48s)
know one thing exact from you so I've
[66:46] (4006.96s)
been working in data engineering for
[66:48] (4008.76s)
five years now so one thing is I'll be
[66:51] (4011.20s)
working on a different manager my
[66:52] (4012.80s)
project manager is different and my Vine
[66:54] (4014.56s)
manager and the whole setup is different
[66:57] (4017.04s)
where I am reporting to so for the P for
[67:00] (4020.56s)
the performance review I have to take
[67:02] (4022.56s)
what what all I have done to my manager
[67:05] (4025.12s)
or the reporting manager it would be a
[67:07] (4027.16s)
very tedious task to explain him what I
[67:09] (4029.96s)
have done since he's not managing me and
[67:12] (4032.44s)
as a data engineer like most of the
[67:14] (4034.96s)
things I'll coding and all the backend
[67:16] (4036.88s)
work it this can be applicable to the
[67:19] (4039.08s)
backend Engineers as well so I don't
[67:21] (4041.60s)
even for the fact that to put something
[67:23] (4043.84s)
in my portfolio I don't have any
[67:25] (4045.52s)
anything to show in the front end so how
[67:27] (4047.72s)
do you manage this how do you showcase
[67:29] (4049.60s)
yourself at the great question yeah so I
[67:33] (4053.08s)
I got you on this so so part of this is
[67:34] (4054.84s)
if you don't have a portfolio piece
[67:36] (4056.16s)
something shiny or flashy to put in
[67:38] (4058.40s)
front of people like part of that is on
[67:40] (4060.64s)
the data scientist to help you bring
[67:42] (4062.24s)
that to the end or the data analyst to
[67:44] (4064.08s)
give you that front end experience if
[67:45] (4065.64s)
it's a viz project so that's one way
[67:48] (4068.80s)
that like you can sell yourself I think
[67:50] (4070.80s)
another way is like what are the other
[67:52] (4072.24s)
Downstream impacts for example for me
[67:53] (4073.92s)
when I worked at Airbnb one of the big
[67:56] (4076.00s)
things was is I worked on the pricing
[67:58] (4078.56s)
and availability data sets which then
[68:01] (4081.08s)
got put into Smart Pricing which is an
[68:03] (4083.12s)
algorithm that picks prices for Airbnb
[68:05] (4085.52s)
listings and that had a very big impact
[68:07] (4087.76s)
on the business so that usually it's
[68:10] (4090.24s)
there's like your data sets can be sold
[68:11] (4091.88s)
as they make one of three people make a
[68:14] (4094.56s)
decision better it's either they make an
[68:16] (4096.04s)
executive better at making a strategic
[68:18] (4098.04s)
decision they make a data scientist or
[68:19] (4099.76s)
data analyst better at making a product
[68:21] (4101.52s)
decision or they make a machine learning
[68:23] (4103.52s)
algorithm better at making an automated
[68:25] (4105.16s)
decision
[68:26] (4106.12s)
and if one of those three things is
[68:28] (4108.44s)
better there's usually a metric behind
[68:30] (4110.88s)
it behind like that kind of stuff
[68:33] (4113.36s)
sometimes the analytical work doesn't
[68:35] (4115.52s)
have as much of a metric because it's
[68:37] (4117.80s)
more an increased visibility but trying
[68:40] (4120.44s)
to craft a story behind that visibility
[68:43] (4123.60s)
can be another great thing to do because
[68:45] (4125.56s)
it will help show show things off that
[68:47] (4127.76s)
way and one last thing I would say is
[68:49] (4129.64s)
that as a data engineer you always have
[68:51] (4131.84s)
the optimization metrics that you can
[68:53] (4133.72s)
look at like this pipeline is now 30%
[68:56] (4136.24s)
faster or 40% faster because one of the
[68:58] (4138.32s)
bigest things I did at Airbnb for the
[68:59] (4139.84s)
pricing and availability data sets is I
[69:01] (4141.60s)
cut their size by 90% And the whole
[69:04] (4144.36s)
company can then use a data set that's
[69:06] (4146.04s)
10 times smaller and so that was another
[69:08] (4148.76s)
way I sold my impact but it's a tricky
[69:11] (4151.76s)
problem because data engineering has
[69:13] (4153.32s)
that kind of issue where it does fall
[69:15] (4155.40s)
into the Shadows a little bit and it
[69:16] (4156.76s)
doesn't have as much of that shiny
[69:18] (4158.16s)
frontend appeal to it that you can't
[69:20] (4160.00s)
show it off as much as you can show off
[69:21] (4161.96s)
a squl query I don't know so I think
[69:23] (4163.88s)
that'd be my kind of perspective on like
[69:25] (4165.52s)
to like sell your impact as a data
[69:27] (4167.80s)
engineer okay awesome so unfortunately I
[69:31] (4171.48s)
think we're going to end the questions
[69:32] (4172.72s)
here I'm going to start with Ryan and
[69:34] (4174.16s)
we're going to ask everyone on the panel
[69:35] (4175.68s)
to just say where can people follow up
[69:37] (4177.84s)
with you or if you have any concluding
[69:39] (4179.56s)
remarks uh Ryan you can go go ahead and
[69:41] (4181.84s)
start yeah thanks rul for doing the
[69:46] (4186.60s)
question asking and organizing
[69:48] (4188.72s)
everything that was really awesome
[69:50] (4190.72s)
thanks so much to my fellow panelists it
[69:52] (4192.60s)
was great meeting all I see you all on
[69:54] (4194.72s)
LinkedIn but this first time actually
[69:56] (4196.68s)
putting a face to the name so it's
[69:58] (4198.64s)
really great and I really appreciate
[70:00] (4200.60s)
everyone listening and just the showing
[70:02] (4202.68s)
was really awesome I feel like I always
[70:04] (4204.80s)
just interact through like comments and
[70:06] (4206.72s)
stuff so this is really welcome
[70:08] (4208.36s)
interaction where you can follow me at
[70:10] (4210.72s)
mainly post on LinkedIn and the other
[70:12] (4212.68s)
thing that I do is I write a substack
[70:15] (4215.08s)
which kind of has a lot of content
[70:16] (4216.64s)
that's about software engineering career
[70:18] (4218.60s)
growth and all that I'll put the link in
[70:20] (4220.96s)
the chat there so yeah thanks everyone
[70:22] (4222.76s)
for listening yeah Ryan substack is pure
[70:25] (4225.72s)
just Solid Gold by the way so so good
[70:28] (4228.52s)
it's so it's so good it's so good
[70:30] (4230.08s)
definitely definitely definitely uh
[70:31] (4231.72s)
subscribe to that I'll pass it to uh Z
[70:35] (4235.92s)
awesome thanks thanks everyone for uh
[70:37] (4237.56s)
coming to this I'm like amazed that we
[70:39] (4239.24s)
were able to get like 200 I think we
[70:40] (4240.76s)
were at Peak and we like 260 people in
[70:42] (4242.60s)
here it's freaking nuts and for me it's
[70:44] (4244.72s)
I'm mostly on LinkedIn and Twitter uh I
[70:47] (4247.00s)
do reals as well reals and Tik toks so
[70:49] (4249.12s)
if you want to get me there too that's
[70:50] (4250.68s)
great I'm finally understanding reals
[70:52] (4252.76s)
and Tik toks they are a weird one and
[70:55] (4255.52s)
yeah I do substack as well that's why I
[70:56] (4256.96s)
do more long form data engineering stuff
[70:58] (4258.52s)
I'm mostly talking about data
[70:59] (4259.44s)
engineering right now but in the future
[71:01] (4261.28s)
in the next sixish months I'm going to
[71:03] (4263.16s)
be doing more software engineering
[71:05] (4265.00s)
content as well and like software
[71:06] (4266.12s)
engineering data product content like
[71:08] (4268.68s)
similar if youall ever read the book
[71:09] (4269.88s)
designing data intensive applications I
[71:11] (4271.84s)
want to build boot camps that teach that
[71:13] (4273.72s)
in a very applied way but anyways I have
[71:16] (4276.56s)
the two domains that I would recommend
[71:18] (4278.44s)
y'all check out I have exactly. substack
[71:23] (4283.20s)
docomo and that's going to be more
[71:26] (4286.84s)
I bought the domain I spent the money I
[71:29] (4289.08s)
spent the money how much was that domain
[71:31] (4291.36s)
that's a really good domain was like
[71:33] (4293.48s)
seven Grand that bad it honestly was not
[71:36] (4296.32s)
that bad yeah I'll pass it to Lee yeah
[71:39] (4299.84s)
so I right first off yes thanks everyone
[71:42] (4302.96s)
for coming this is a great turnout good
[71:45] (4305.08s)
questions everything it was a great
[71:46] (4306.56s)
conversation I am have just started like
[71:49] (4309.40s)
within the last couple of weeks the
[71:50] (4310.64s)
substack I've been writing on LinkedIn a
[71:52] (4312.60s)
lot but it's a very hard platform for
[71:54] (4314.68s)
people to discuss discover old content
[71:56] (4316.24s)
on and such even though I was like super
[71:58] (4318.20s)
fastidiously like keeping a link tree up
[72:00] (4320.32s)
to date for a while it didn't matter no
[72:01] (4321.84s)
one used it so for a long timely yeah so
[72:05] (4325.60s)
it's been about a year and I have
[72:08] (4328.32s)
written a lot of things so I'm trying to
[72:10] (4330.72s)
find a way to recycle those and shiny
[72:12] (4332.64s)
them up potentially on substack so um
[72:15] (4335.16s)
come see me I toss the link into the
[72:17] (4337.12s)
chat you can easily find me on LinkedIn
[72:18] (4338.84s)
my name is fairly unique so yeah we've
[72:21] (4341.16s)
got Carly left and rul so Carly you're
[72:24] (4344.00s)
up Hey
[72:26] (4346.04s)
awesome hey everybody you can find me on
[72:27] (4347.92s)
LinkedIn uh I'm also on Instagram Carly
[72:31] (4351.04s)
machine learning I don't do any link act
[72:33] (4353.44s)
do I just mostly PR real I think that
[72:35] (4355.88s)
are funny but I think we all need that
[72:38] (4358.20s)
in our lives you can also find me
[72:40] (4360.12s)
playing Call of Duty um I'm sorry ahead
[72:43] (4363.44s)
of time for smoking you yeah that's
[72:46] (4366.48s)
mostly it this was super fun uh right R
[72:50] (4370.56s)
all right yeah so once again thank you
[72:52] (4372.12s)
to everyone who joined and thank you to
[72:53] (4373.44s)
the panelists it's so much fun I feel
[72:54] (4374.84s)
like all interacted online in in some
[72:57] (4377.96s)
asent capacity but it's super fun to see
[73:00] (4380.24s)
all four of you in this more real time
[73:02] (4382.20s)
way I want to say two things one is a
[73:03] (4383.80s)
piece of advice and then the other is I
[73:05] (4385.68s)
want to plug something right so in terms
[73:07] (4387.68s)
of one takeaway at least for me is I
[73:10] (4390.96s)
think the vast majority of people when
[73:12] (4392.44s)
they are aiming for staff engineer or
[73:14] (4394.36s)
any senior engineer they the 99% of
[73:18] (4398.20s)
Engineers are lacking when it comes to
[73:21] (4401.20s)
relationship building and talking to
[73:22] (4402.88s)
people it's not about the code it's
[73:24] (4404.48s)
about really figuring out what are the
[73:26] (4406.52s)
problems who are the people who are
[73:27] (4407.80s)
encountering those problems and how can
[73:29] (4409.20s)
you solve them so I think that's in my
[73:30] (4410.96s)
opinion one thing that I really would
[73:32] (4412.84s)
love for people to take away from this
[73:34] (4414.64s)
conversation in terms of lugging stuff I
[73:37] (4417.76s)
have a YouTube channel I have been
[73:39] (4419.48s)
trying to be better about higher quality
[73:42] (4422.36s)
content there in terms of like really
[73:44] (4424.28s)
fit the algorithm so I'd love for you to
[73:46] (4426.32s)
get give feedback there if you have any
[73:48] (4428.68s)
and yeah LinkedIn is also I'm pretty
[73:50] (4430.36s)
active there so I think that's it I
[73:53] (4433.00s)
think we have to have two follow-ups
[73:54] (4434.36s)
number one is back we need to hear about
[73:56] (4436.04s)
your Burning Man Saga and then number
[73:58] (4438.52s)
two if you all are okay with that you
[74:00] (4440.64s)
can do like round two of the staff
[74:01] (4441.96s)
engineer panel in another month or two
[74:04] (4444.68s)
but this is super fun whoops all Q&A
[74:07] (4447.52s)
yeah whoops all Q I'm so down I'm so
[74:10] (4450.16s)
down this is absolutely wonderful yeah
[74:13] (4453.28s)
cool okay this is super fun thank you
[74:15] (4455.40s)
again to everyone have a great evening
[74:17] (4457.80s)
bye everybody bye