The issue with this is that it leads to people choosing projects based on what they think is promotable and doing the bare minimum on anything else. Which is how you get code with no tests or documentation.
I think there needs to be some recognition for people who saw that there was a real need for some grunt work, and the business was suffering because of it, and went and did the work. The key part about this that I would consider "senior" is being able to look at everything that is going on and figure out what is actually critical.
> Which is how you get code with no tests or documentation.
Without knowing this is actually detrimental to the org, I don't find this to be a problem in and of itself.
> there was a real need for some grunt work, and the business was suffering because of it
I would expect a Senior Engineer to be able to advocate and justify this grunt work.
> The key part about this that I would consider "senior" is being able to look at everything that is going on and figure out what is actually critical.
"Actually" is the operating word here. This requires external validation. If you feel you've saved the company but can't convince anyone of it, then you probably didn't save the company.
I think there needs to be some recognition for people who saw that there was a real need for some grunt work, and the business was suffering because of it, and went and did the work. The key part about this that I would consider "senior" is being able to look at everything that is going on and figure out what is actually critical.