Ask HN: Is it wrong not wanting career progression beyond senior?

My take might be a controversial take overall. Also note that I'm speaking as an American, in the "land of the free", which actually does apply in this case, I think:

First, if it's OK with you, then it's not wrong. Ignore the things society/advertisers tell you: "You need a boat! You need a nice car! You need a pool!" Do you want a boat? Do you want a nice car? Do you want a pool? You actually have complete control over these optional financial burdens.

OK, so if you've taken a step back and established what you actually want, (and this may change throughout your life), then you can set some goals around how to achieve that. People may judge you (fuck em, imo). You will get asked questions about what you do for a living all the time (probably), and maybe the status of a more prestigious role is important to you. It's all up to you (possibly with some input from loved ones if you value their opinions).

Personally, I'm kind of a minimalist. I have pretty much all the stuff that I want already. I actively fight against acquiring more stuff. If I had enough capital for my family to live off 10% per year, I would quit my job today, and offer my services for free to causes that I actually care about. Come to think of it, I guess that's one of my goals.

“Even if you win the rat race, you’re still a rat”.

I’m in this field because I like writing code. So many of my managers tried to push me to advance my career, and generally speaking, there is peer pressure. Don’t give in, if you’re having fun, and make enough for a dignified living, that’s what really matters, not the title.

For me, I have two competing worries in deciding what’s next after senior. I like to spend my days in code. I don’t enjoy time spent in meetings like some people seem to. I don’t enjoy managing other people. But I also don’t enjoy poorly planned work, which is problematic as I’m become more opinionated about over time.

Ultimately, I think you should feel ok rejecting a promotion if it forces you into responsibilities you don’t want to have. But you’re probably going to have to accept the consequences of that either way. And you might even be forced into doing some of those responsibilities and not get paid for it.

I know people in their 60s who are senior engineers and are quite content with their career and where they are. I know people in their 30s who are directors. It really depends on the person and where your talents and strengths lie.

The key, though it's admittedly easier said than done, is for you to do you and not worry about what everyone else is doing.

You might consider hiring yourself out as a contractor. This is especially interesting if you're specialized in some vertical where you can bring consultancy skills to the table. Be the guy who's brought in when there's a problem, replace some proverbial screw, and then charge a week's salary for it. Because nobody else knew exactly which screw to replace.

Also, this path allows you to delegate work to other contractors that you have vetted. After all, your clients care about the results, not who does the actual job.

That's fine. Most people never advance beyond "Senior" (by title or objective scope).

Let's say a Senior is someone who's shown they can work effectively as part of a team, reliably and with little/no direction. You need part X of a system done, X is reasonable enough goal, and they will make X happen, including collaborating with interdependencies in a wise way. And they can go home at the end of the day, and have a life.

I'm "Principal" (and aspiring startup-CTO), and in my version of that, I live for this, I invest in the big and small pictures of whatever I'm working on, I believe in the mission for real, I have earned battle scars that help me solve system/org problems, and avert many bigger problems.

If a process isn't working well, or a product isn't on the right track, or team members aren't happy, or the hiring or culture are going sour, or things that should be happening aren't happening, or things that shouldn't be happening are, anywhere in the company... hopefully I'll notice, or someone will trust they can tell me about it, and I'll help figure who and how to tackle it with, and apply all the energy required. It would bother me not to.

I'd implicitly take on that scope of responsibility, even if I didn't officially have that role. Most people don't want that much responsibility, and most shouldn't have to.

Senior is a perfectly respectable role to serve until retirement, and a key part of what most orgs need to execute successfully. (Don't believe the bro myths popularized in some companies, like up-or-out.)

In general no, but as you age (and gain years of work experience), being "Senior" for e.g. 15 years will make some hiring people look down on you and try to skip you from someone "that can grow". So in combination with ageism in this industry, it might become a problem in the future, especially if the market doesn't recover and everyone else title inflates to Staff and other fancy titles.

No, there's nothing intrinsically wrong about not progressing past senior. Most companies see that as a terminal level because staff+ is such a shift in skillset.

It's fascinating to me that you've not attained the senior level after a 15+ year career, though. That's a lot of time to spend as a mid-level engineer. Out of curiosity, why aren't you a senior engineer?

Senior just means you've worked for awhile. You're automatically a senior based on your work history. If you apply to junior roles companies will be confused, or they will just rerank you as senior anyway. Senior does not automatically mean more responsibilities, but leadership does.

Sometimes the bump in pay for leadership does not correspond to the amount of burden you experience, meaning your life might be worse for it and for not enough money. If you pursue leadership absolutely make sure that the pay is truly worth it because owning responsibility sometimes means late nights fighting fires.

Sounds like you're doing totally solid in your career.

That's pretty much why many places consider senior a terminal position. You're expected to progress from junior to midweight to senior, but after that it's fine to plateau.

There’s nothing wrong with that at all. I’ve often thought it’s insane that our industry says “ok you’re really good at writing code, now let’s see if you can manage people.” They’re extremely different, almost mutually antagonistic skill sets. A whole lot of people are good at writing code because they don’t want to deal with other people.

You’re making plenty good money I assume. You can take that money and invest it and make more that way. Your income is not capped even if your salary is.

If you make good money, have a good quality of life, and like what you do you don’t really have to think beyond that at all. But if you want to think beyond that, there are other options.

I personally experimented the dread of high responsibilities, and decided "never again".

Since then, I have technical only positions.

There is much to do technically, and I'm better paid than my chief.

I enjoy each day of work, swimming in my lack of responsibilities

I had a conversation with the VP of my department once about this.

He said that he is never going to try to advance beyond his role, and that he made that decision a long time ago. He decided what level he wanted to be at, fought to get there, and plans to be there for the rest of his career.

I also know a software engineer who has made the same decision. He wanted to hit the highest he could go in his role that didn't pivot to management (lead, director, etc) and he achieved it and has been happy there.

They're both very chill people, and they do well for themselves. Both also advised me (as I share your sentiments) to figure out where you want to end up, work hard to get there, make connections, and then do the best in that role for as long as you have it.

The VP said that even if you are dead set on being the president of the company, the truth is that the further you go up the pyramid, the fewer opportunities there are, and the more people competing for those opportunities. Unless you are willing to sacrifice everything else in your life for the chance to land that seat, it's not worth it.

I'm still relatively early on my career, so I'm fighting to get further up, but I know whereabouts I want to end up, and it's way below where my peers want to be. And I'm fine with that.

I was messing around on LinkedIn and I noticed that someone I hired into a senior position two jobs ago is still a senior engineer 14 years later.

I've had the discussion with various people reporting to me over time that they were perfectly happy right where they were and had no desire to progress.

Go with what makes you happy and try to find a place that lets you be.

Hell, sometimes I wish that I'd never been promoted.

You are not wrong. Career isn't everything. A job is there to earn money first, fun second. Perpetual promotions aren't in that list at all.

This is your life in the EU as a developer. Most companies only have junior/senior titles, just to tell beginners apart from "3+ years of experience". Very few companies have staff engineer level. You can either go on to be a manager, or land in a company which suits your vision of being a senior developer.

I've been very explicit with my manager about not wanting to be promoted. There's nothing wrong with saying "this is enough."

Also--your decision is a "for now" decision, not a "forever" decision.

I don't think it's wrong. I'm myself a fresh senior engineer and I'm probably going to keep that title for quite a few years.

However, the thing about working as a lead engineer (IC) is, you can pick what you want to work on. You don't have to write boilerplate code. You can still write a lot of code if you want (David Cutler said he has always been a hands-on manager who writes a lot of code). And the pay is definitely a lot better, so I think that definitely holds some weight.

Senior Engineer tends to be a catch-all phrase for people who have 3+ years of experience but, for whatever reason, are getting into the next level of promotions (Staff for IC/TLs, manager for EMs). Most people are in this group, and there's nothing wrong with being here.

Once you plateau in your career, after a bit you realize this is it for the duration and you may want to do something radical/crazy - the famous mid-life crisis. After some wild and crazy times you may come back to earth and return to your tech career if you can reconnect to the current tech stack and then plodding on to retirement may seem like a blessing.

If you are ok with money and you do at your job things you want to do - stay that way. Overengineering roles currently kills people that go higher on the ladder. Sometimes there is space to go back, sometimes they are burned out too much.

If you have safe procedure to change teams and environment in case of stagnation in current project - use it and be happy.

I know people who have stepped down from principal. I just got the bump to principal myself after (allegedly) performing at Principal level for years.

The fun satisfying stuff is the generally lower impact work. The boring and frustrating stuff is higher impact work. If you do not need the Principal money, and Senior money is good enough to retire on, I can understand how you might be tempted to stay at senior, or even take a pay cut.

TL;DR: nothing wrong at all with staying at Senior.

Tell your confidantes, particularly technical friends, you don't want to be promoted beyond senior.

Hopefully they ask you why.

Then you can learn what it is you are really thinking (but you have started here, so yay!)

I'm in the same boat. I want to have a stake in what I'm working, on but the politics/meetings seem overwhelming. I want to do interesting work without the pressure of unrealistic management expectations hanging over my head

Try contracting, then people won't care about your career progression.

I remember working as a student at a narrow magazine in Copenhagen when I started developing. Many of the old journalists there deliberately choose to continue writing articles and in depth stories as opposed to becoming editor or manager. They loved their craft and it fulfilled their aspirations. I find it admirable to follow your passion.

Additionally, you can continuously learn new skills independent of formal role.

I tried being a director. It wasn't great for me for the time. I'm back to coding, which I do for fun anyway.

Has one been offered to you or that's a theoretical question? Why? I have friends who do want to go to management and ones who do not. None of us has ever have such offer.

Also, judging from HN/reddit people more often than not regret not advancing to management.

In uk you’re automatically senior after roughly 3 years.

From company pov, yes. Because they want people who are driven to get to next stage.

From individual pov, no. Because everyone a different priorities in life.

Goal is to find the company where their expectation meets your priorities.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with choosing to stay away from senior positions, and in fact there are many benefits to what you're doing. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the "Gervais Principle", but it's a fun theory to think about related to this. I'm sure HN has brought it up before, but it's relevant here. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

The idea is that the mid-level "clueless" are the ones who choose to climb a corporate hierarchy, while the non-senior "losers" (not social losers, but the people who struck bad financial bargains) are able to give up capitalist striving for a stable life. As a "loser" you can move between different jobs more easily, stay happy, and avoid politics and unnecessary responsibility. Here's an excerpt from that article that resonates with me:

"The Losers like to feel good about their lives. They are the happiness seekers, rather than will-to-power players, and enter and exit reactively, in response to the meta-Darwinian trends in the economy. But they have no more loyalty to the firm than the Sociopaths. They do have a loyalty to individual people, and a commitment to finding fulfillment through work when they can, and coasting when they cannot."

I actually find the "loser" to be the most interesting and useful person at most companies.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

No, you do whatever's best for you.

nothing wrong, you do you and stick to what makes you happy :)

Of course, it's not wrong. You do you man!

But if you are looking for general advice, I think it's important to want career progression. Generally speaking, for most people, bills go up as they age (kids, health, yada-yada). Unless you are sitting on inheritance money, you'll want to have a bigger pay-check to meet life's challenges.

Yes it's wrong, you will be harshly judged in the afterlife

Tech is a moving target, but it can endure as it fades and is superseded, as long as you float along jumping to a new log as the other one gets water logged and sinks below you - the new stacks you speak of. As long as you are content with the progression and are happy with what you earn(assuming it inflates accordingly), you are a success in what you do! Though I have seen too many people choose the wrong log = sinks with all hands, so survey your field and stay afloat.

>I am not looking for FIRE.

If you hate the idea of making more money, as the meme goes, perhaps consider that is because you are actually Financially Independent and Retired Early without realizing it.

Being able to say "I don't want more money." is a luxury only few people can truly afford.

It's perfectly fine.

I've mentored and hired a lot of people that just want to sling code and get their 3% inflation raise every year. Good on them, love those folks.

Doing what you enjoy and getting paid well for it is the American Dream, or at least one of them. To a lot of people, you probably won the lottery.

I got talked into management twice and I hated it both times.

[dead]

[flagged]

[flagged]