> When you apply for your next job as a manager they will ask you “How big was your team?”, and they won’t be impressed when you say “I managed to keep it down to four people”
I had this same interaction when applying for Staff+ software engineer (not manager) at two FAANGs.
One of the recruiters sniffed, or maybe negged, and said they expected X number people under you for that role.
Highly effective small teams was considered small-time, not a selling point. Also not-OK was leading engineering for an early startup. Nor was a cross-company Principal role interfacing with everyone.
(However, both companies were still open to me doing their new-grad Leetcode hazing battery or Python grunting automated screening test. Which isn't a sign that their culture is otherwise good, other than the team size fixation.)
Same for technology used. You won’t get much credit for keeping costs down and keeping things simple. The real money is in developing super complex systems. That will give you respect.
Yes, this is my mantra. Senior Only-Developers are attracted to complex problems and try to make things using as many language from the "advanced" book as possible.
That's why I like all-round developers better, they have a bit less to prove by making "smart and complicated" code.
The flex reply here is to say how much value you created with your small team. Everyone is familiar with Instagram being acquired for $1B at 13 employees, and that track record would be sufficient to carry you a long way even if you did nothing more after.
If that doesn’t work for a given company, well, interviews go two ways :)
> One of the recruiters sniffed, or maybe negged, and said they expected X number people under you for that role.
Ridiculous. Essentially saying the staff role is management in all but name.
> Highly effective small teams was considered small-time, not a selling point. Also not-OK was leading engineering for an early startup. Nor was a cross-company Principal role interfacing with everyone.
Hilarious they insist on holding ICs feet to the fire for hiring while letting their own culture wither away to petty little fiefdoms.
I had this same interaction when applying for Staff+ software engineer (not manager) at two FAANGs.
One of the recruiters sniffed, or maybe negged, and said they expected X number people under you for that role.
Highly effective small teams was considered small-time, not a selling point. Also not-OK was leading engineering for an early startup. Nor was a cross-company Principal role interfacing with everyone.
(However, both companies were still open to me doing their new-grad Leetcode hazing battery or Python grunting automated screening test. Which isn't a sign that their culture is otherwise good, other than the team size fixation.)