Last week I sat for an internal interview about my career progression to high level IC engineer, with a focus on how I've never felt I needed to become a manager to gain influence. I thought I would share some of my career advice for aspiring IC "lifers." Thread!
When asked for IC career advice the first thing I always say is: YOU grow your career and influence. Not management, not the company, YOU. This means constantly advocating for ways to grow: subjects to learn, projects with increased scope, and sometimes new teams or companies.
This also means "managing up" is critical. Don't assume your manager is acting in your best interest. Hopefully they are (when your interests *and theirs* align), but sometimes they aren't, and it's important to recognize that early and correct it, or eject if it's not fixable.
The job market for engineers has never been better. DO stay in a job if you are growing, learning, increasing your scope, and generally happy.
Do NOT stay in a job solely to get a promotion or more money, or if you are hungry for more growth, but finding it difficult to carve out opportunities. In these cases, consider switching jobs as a way to fast track your growth with less politics.
Speaking of promotions, the last time I got one was back in my early 20s. I have never seen a promotion process that is not subjective, political, and biased (I say this as a privileged white male, I shudder to think how others fare).
If you are growing in your abilities and generally happy at a job, and a promotion is a side effect, that's great. If your growth is stalled, consider switching jobs, and you will very likely get a promotion and more money, with less political heartache.
I recognize that not everyone can easily move jobs whether due to finances, visas, health, family, etc. and that it's a privilege to be able to do so. If you do have the ability, it provides a significant amount of flexibility and leverage to keep your career growing.
At higher IC levels, you will generally need to choose between focusing on "breadth" versus "depth." Breadth means having wide influence over the technical direction of a business. This typically requires staying at a company for a long time to build context/relationships.
Depth means working towards becoming an industry expert in a specialized field. I have chosen to become a depth IC. It's what I enjoy and I also think it allows for more job flexibility and leverage per above.
Finally, I will reiterate how critical networking and building relationships on the job is. Every job I have moved to (save 1) has been via previous colleagues. Finding people you like working with and for, and moving through the industry with them can be a great growth tactic.
Let's come back to the original subject of the interview which was influence as an IC vs manager. Influence is poorly defined, and situationally dependent, but to me it boils down to scope of impact.
At the highest levels, having large impact as an IC universally requires excellent technical and communication skills. Breadth ICs achieve large impact via cross org relationship building and technical leadership based on intimate knowledge of a business.
Depth ICs achieve large impact via company or industry leadership in a specialized field, therein advancing the state of the art, and having wide impact via novel technological outcomes.
^ requires finding the right opportunity that lets you visibly demonstrate your technical prowess to a wide audience. Determination and job switching if necessary helps, but luck is also a factor (i.e. I was in the right place at the right time with Envoy and executed well).
One last thing: don't let anyone tell you that the tech/engineering is the easy part. It's not. It's hard. Soft skills are also hard. It's ALL hard, and both are required to succeed.
In summary: focus on personal growth, learning, and relationships. Advocate for yourself relentlessly. Think about impact via breadth versus depth. Stay an IC If you like it. If switching teams or jobs helps realize your goals, and you have the ability to do so, make the leap.
P.S. It seems that "IC" is not a common term everywhere. It means individual contributor. Someone who has no direct reports and is not a people manager.
If you are finding this thread a couple of years later you might be interested in the following 2 podcast episodes where I talk about this topic:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Matt Klein

Matt Klein Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mattklein123

Aug 8, 2020
I've been spend a bunch of my "spare" "manager" time lately working on fixing @EnvoyProxy test flakes. A few thoughts on testing. 🧵
We have invested heavily in Envoy testing. Our line coverage is > 97% split across unit tests (with mocks), integration tests (fake clients and upstream servers using real networking), and fuzzing. The effort here pays off: our velocity is high with relatively few regressions.
While all 3 types (unit/integration/fuzz) provide value, integration are the biggest bang for the buck from a functional perspective. They cover real end-to-end scenarios and provide high confidence that a feature actually works.
Read 8 tweets
Jul 11, 2020
The perception in our industry that you need to "love what you do," "focus on your side projects," "nerd out," and generally "hustle," drives me batty. It is 100% fine to be here purely for the 💰. 🧵
The last time I owned a computer that was not provided by work was about 20 years ago. I have never had a side project. My hobbies have nothing to do with technology.
I am here because if I need to make money to support my family, lifestyle, interests, and causes, working for internet companies is about as spoiled/privileged a way to do it as possible.
Read 5 tweets
Feb 17, 2020
The politics around Istio and Knative within Google are fascinating. AFAICT from the outside, they are primarily driven by a few execs who believe that Google "gave away the farm" when they moved K8s into a foundation. A few of my thoughts on this subject: 🧵
People frequently conflate "open governance" and "neutral IP ownership." It depends greatly on the foundation, but in the case of the CNCF, there are literally zero governance requirements enforced on projects. CNCF projects can be (and are) single vendor governed.
So in reality, CNCF (and ASF, etc.) are primarily around to provide neutral IP/trademark ownership. This allows projects to be used in consuming projects/products without fear of IP/mark litigation.
Read 9 tweets
Nov 23, 2019
Some thoughts from this year's #kubecon now that I am back in ☁️ city and have decompressed a bit. (Thread)
The stable of CNCF technologies is maturing, but they are still primarily building blocks. End users are struggling to figure how to put them together in useful ways, and often end up inheriting complexity they don't need.
The vendor ecosystem is not helping decrease complexity; quite the opposite. The fierce competition, FUD, and sometimes rancor is confusing end users. CNCF is not helping either; the official landscape is so large and confusing as to be useless. We need to do better.
Read 12 tweets
Jun 23, 2019
A thread on "service meshes" and distributed system software complexity in general. Buckle up!
Our industry tends to fetishize the technical architectures of companies like Google, Netflix, etc. They have built some impressive tech to solve rare scaling issues, so this is not surprising. However, does your company/system need similar solutions? Probably not...
The backlash against service mesh, K8S, and other ☁️ native tech is based, reasonably IMO, on the view that vendor marketing and big tech thought-leading are causing smaller orgs to not see the forest for the trees and adopt solutions that are too complex for their actual needs.
Read 13 tweets
Apr 23, 2019
Ok the quiet period is over so welcome to my thread on "high" levels of ☁️ spending.
There has been a lot of coverage lately on how much 💰 companies are spending on public cloud. Lyft, > 10M per month, Apple > 30M per month, etc. This seems like a ton of 💰 right? Clearly all of these companies can do better in-house, right? Wrong!
Don't get me wrong, 10M+ per month is a lot of 💰 in absolute terms, but the real question is whether a company can actually do better than that when considering TCO.
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!