Hacker News Reader

Comment by HEmanZ | Hacker News Reader

This seems very generally true to a point, so on average it works out. But I think there is a big caveat. My thoughts are centered around software development, but I know there are many analogous career paths.

I really believe if your career goal is to peak a lot higher than just middle-management or senior software engineer, and earn the pay that comes with those higher positions, you need to stay on the same company and even same project for much longer periods of time (I would say 5 year absolute minimums). If I look around at the careers of Distinguished Engineers and senior principal engineers, or VPs of Engineering at FAANGs, etc., these people always have massive chunks of time at the same company, often many years on the same product even. If they have changed companies a few times in their careers, it’s after a string of promotions and delivering big things. It is really hard to build a portfolio of high-level impact with 2 year stints.

View on HN

That’s how I became cto at 40 years old, I stayed long enough while being indispensable enough and always taking the difficult projects.

It’s a gamble though and I needed to play hardball when negotiating with the owner for the new salary to properly reflect my new position. That only worked because I was more willing to walk away than he was.

I’d honestly recommend doing 2-3 years stints in the early 20s and then progressively longer but only if the company had room for growth and ways of to get into difficult projects where you both learn something and deliver actual quantifiable benefits to the company

Is 40 an unusually young age to become CTO? I’m pretty sure most CTOs I worked under took the position first around that age or younger.

Founder CTOs are young, other CTOs tend to be older.

I’ve observed the same. I do often wonder how much of this is strategy vs being in the right place at the right time as a talented individual. If you’re on a rocket ship, the incentive is to stay and ride that train.

I think past a point (roughly ~senior SWE level) it becomes hard to develop deeper expertise in a series of two year stints.

I think that makes sense when you are already at a "good" company. Then there is opportunity for advancement. The average dark matter developer is not at a FAANG company so YMMV.

People who continually get rewarded at their companies (higher level positions, promotions, etc.) tend to stay at said companies. That’s all you’re seeing.

I’ve seen folks go from new grad to staff in under 4 years at FAANG. They just had a favorable relationship with their manager. It’s a ton of luck. You don’t get to entirely choose your manager and company trajectory in most cases.

Almost everyone in SV is overqualified. I’ve rarely met anyone who I felt was incapable of doing the job adequately. Often when I felt that way, it was someone who was “distinguished” in the way you’re mentioning… which speaks more to my point. It’s about your relation with management and your luck in said relation.

>I’ve seen folks go from new grad to staff in under 4 years at FAANG.

That only happens at Meta and i'm dubious they could do the job of staff at any other company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com