One that I think might be missing is The Therapist:
They are the glue that gets buy-in and agreement between people talking past each other. They demonstrate how a healthy organization can lead a team by setting guidelines for collaboration, communicating, being constructive, and removing barriers or silos between key stakeholders. They can resolve disagreements and unblock political stalemates with their unilateral authority and uncanny conflict resolution skills.
> They are the glue that gets buy-in and agreement between people talking past each other. They demonstrate how a healthy organization can lead a team by setting guidelines for collaboration, communicating, being constructive, and removing barriers or silos between key stakeholders.
That's a management function.
If I took a Staff Engineer role and my job was to compensate for organizational dysfunction and fill voids left by underperforming managers, I'd be leaving that role very quickly. Either that or requesting a formal title change (or promotion) into an actual management position.
Hiring a Staff Engineer when you really need better managers isn't a good solution, especially because a Staff Engineer wouldn't have the necessary org structure authority to be an effective manager-of-managers.
> If I took a Staff Engineer role and my job was to compensate for organizational dysfunction and fill voids left by underperforming managers, I'd be leaving that role very quickly. Either that or requesting a formal title change (or promotion) into an actual management position.
Eh. You might not fit it, but I really like that role. I don't want to be out of technical conversations and I don't love reports, but I do really like facilitating a path forward. At the moment I'm working outside of an engineering function, but I do it when wearing that hat, too.
> a Staff Engineer wouldn't have the necessary org structure authority to be an effective manager-of-managers
If that were the job, then yes. It is a soft-power role, though, not a hard-power structural role.
Limited authority absolutely can be a problem, but usually due to intransigence, at which point the hard-power elements of the org (who are typically limited in their available attention span) can be escalated to.
> Eh. You might not fit it, but I really like that role. I don't want to be out of technical conversations and I don't love reports, but I do really like facilitating a path forward.
I'm not suggesting that the role isn't helpful or that some people wouldn't like it.
This is the problem:
> At the moment I'm working outside of an engineering function,
If the company needs a firefighting cross-team manager, get a firefighting cross-team manager and empower them accordingly.
But hiring Staff Engineers to combat management dysfunction is a misunderstanding of the Staff Engineer role.
> I, on the other hand, really like that role. I don't want to be out of technical conversations and I don't love reports, but I do really like facilitating a path forward. At the moment I'm working outside of an engineering function, but I do it when wearing that hat, too.
iirc this kind of role, and other glue are actually really great Scrum Master && Project Manager skills.
Depends on the role of management in the company. At some companies there is a bright line where managers are expected to _not_ participate directly in the technical discussion of how to solve problems.
So say, in such an organization, two teams each with a Staff Engineer are taking different and conflicting approaches, and neither Staff has been able to pursuade the other to their side? Often in this scenario it's extremely valuable to have a technically capable third-party mediator to help bring the two together.
> > They are the glue that gets buy-in and agreement between people talking past each other.
> That's a management function.
Not at a technical level it's not. If there are honest disagreements about technical direction, you need a strong technical voice and vision to break the logjam. That's not a management problem, although it certainly requires excellent soft skills (requisite for any good Staff+).
It takes both the soft skills and the technical knowledge to get consensus, or at the very least, consent.
A people manager isn't the person to build consensus between teams (necessarily). With complex technical problems, designs and discussions, it's the people with deep technical expertise and good communications skills who will play this role. At my previous employer, these were called "technical architects" but whatever you call them, they are not usually in the "manage other people" role.
I'm pretty sure this was me when I was at that level of engineering seniority, but the reality was that it was a frustrating position to be in, because you're operating outside the expectations of an engineering role. I was in Eng for 13 years, and now I'm a PM, so take that for what you will. This role aligns strongly with what a good technical PM does.
I certainly think that role is missing, but I don't think it's at a role of a staff engineer. In my experience, _The Therapist_ has the ear of a lot of senior people, and more importantly their trust. They understand the technical issues as well as the business problems, but more importantly understand the personalities and politics of the organization. These are the people who can convince people that if they give up a little, then they can get a lot in return. They generally tame strong-arm managers that are just looking for more headcount or more prominent projects that tend to drown out other projects or initiatives that are genuinely needed.
Those people are an absolute necessity, and I think it's very tough for someone to be effective in that role if they don't have a solid technical understanding, but I also don't think that an engineer has the clout to wrangle people the way a _therapist_ needs to. In a small organization, maybe, but at a decent size, mid-sized company and larger it will need to be someone working on the business side, not development or IT operations
I've seen the Wolf in a few companies and they are given some special treatment for sure. The corporate equivalent of the babe and the sports car.
Years ago, one of them had a Macbook Pro while the rest of us were dealing with garbage Dell laptops that barely worked due to aggressive security scanners. He got his turned off by IT.
They are the glue that gets buy-in and agreement between people talking past each other. They demonstrate how a healthy organization can lead a team by setting guidelines for collaboration, communicating, being constructive, and removing barriers or silos between key stakeholders. They can resolve disagreements and unblock political stalemates with their unilateral authority and uncanny conflict resolution skills.