Is there a more pretentious and annoying group of people than Sr. Principals? I swear every single person in that role, male or female, are kind of dou--e bags. It’s all the worst qualities of a someone who’s a director but didn’t have the people and leadership skills to become a director.
20 replies (most recent on top)
The ratio of poor, bad quality PEs, DEs and overall SWEs is much higher than most companies. This is why it takes so long for us to build anything. Even our business leaders say that our teams are incompetent at delivering features with quality and on time.
@kt+1k exactly thats what even i am saying. In data engineering there are good PE's with experience of 20+ as well and some of them hardly 7-10 years and that too only Nike experience. i have heard lot of complaints from experienced lead folks who were complaining about them that they literally do 0 work or dont have min experience.
There are good PEs and there are bad PEs
Problem is Nike seems to never promote based on merit or impact, they promote based on length of time at Nike
We have a Sr. Principle opening that requires 14+ years of experience. Meanwhile, other tech companies have Staff job postings that require only 7+ years of experience
Just because someone has less years of experience, doesn’t mean they deserve that role. We should be assessing performance based on skill, not purely length of time of the job and willingness to go with the status flow
@g1+ dude...get your facts right...there are juniors in PE roles. look at Data engineering team all of them are kids passed out masters from one country putting all fake experience. forgrt about code they cant even draw a ER diagram i damn guarantee...
@fy I think this is more telling on you than on any PE's. I'd wager the ratio of more junior engineers that can't code their way out of a paper bag is way higher than those of PE's.
Best example that guy SS came from Kohls cant even speak english properly is a DE sitting remotely in California...God Save Nike.
looks like entire swarm of so called brilliant engineers coming here and disliking posts that are not in their favor and liking one in their favor. truth be told all the IC's in PE roles are just not capable of even writing a modular code. very few got axed in April 27 and 28th cycle and only useless id--ts were saved.
Look newbie, we only bash on VP's in here, not our fellow tm8's. Shape up.
This seems like such a targeted post. How many Sr Principals are there even? I don't know. I haven't worked with all of them, but the ones I have worked with are great. Just more bitterness to spread I guess.
This is a hilarious take OP. Laughing at you, not with you
As an IC at least you don’t need to deal with the cr-p and whining of direct reports; just focus on your job while the comp of snr principal vs director doesn’t differ that much (especially as principal vs snr manager).
So why would you want to be a director instead of snr principal? Because you believe you might be the 0.001% that becomes a VP?
How would you feel climbing to grade 50 for a Director role, only to get a lame "Senior Principal" title after the IC/Management track split? Ridiculously, many report to Directors incapable of managing ICs let alone grade 50 ICs. the title is just not set up for success.
But my favorite story is about the Principals. A decade after starting from ETW/BSA to finally become a “principal director”, you find out you’re given a grade 45 title - the same as a senior manager you’ve already been through. Worse, those who joined more recently with a lead title got lucky promotions and are now also a grade 45 IC.
Would you work hard if any of these happen to you?
Not accurate. Some great people at that level under utilized and better as people managers in director roles than many others who lead teams. Nike just promotes those who fall in line and departs those who speak out.
I think a lot more of these roles happened in April RIF when they wanted to keep the work the person does but try to silence them after their leader left or team was dissolved.
So people complain about forcing great engineers into management because it's the only career path, and then when a career path to keep engineers doing the work they are good at is created, hated on those that are getting career advancement. This stinks of jealousy. Sure, hate on the promotion process, but honestly, what is more valuable, a very senior engineer, or another middle management director? Exactly what unicorn skills do these directors have that makes them better?
I am actually laughing out loud! It’s a role that “wasn’t quite good enough” but we had to elevate them so that we could justify our own promotion. You know - self serving. The Nike way!
What about “distinguished” engineers. All they do is evangelize AI-generated tools/practices that no one cares to use.
Wise man one say you can't throw a rock in Beaverton without hitting a Nike Director.
Mostly true, but I’ve worked a couple of good ones.
Are you jealous?
Super accurate description