How do flat corporate structures affect leveling at big tech?
I know a few companies that have pretty flat corporate structures. A pretty common example of this are quant firms - they usually only make a distinction between regular and senior SWE, with no higher levels. But this also happens at tech. For example, my friend at Palantir said that the hierarchy is pretty flat, so there’s no level distinguishing between them.
I’m currently interviewing with a rocket ship startup and they seem like a great place for career growth, but everyone’s title is SWE. Most of their engineers are ex-FAANG, so talent is top notch. Having talked to multiple engineers there, they all agree that by their first 1-2 years, they’ve taken full ownership of a vertical in their respective teams and some even leading cross-team collaborations. Would this be considered top-end E4/E5 level scope?
My worry with these flat hierarchies is that you’re able to demonstrate scope but you don’t have the title to match up to what you show. And while title is just a string, I worry that recruiters will use your ambiguous level against you? For example, if you’re an engineer with 2 yoe demonstrating E5 level behaviors without the title, how would recruiters level you?
And a more general discussion: how do recruiters figure out how to place you in the correct interview loop? Is there a way to ask the recruiter to move up or down a level?
![Senior Software Engineer [E5] at Meta company logo](/_next/image/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffirebasestorage.googleapis.com%2Fv0%2Fb%2Ftech-career-growth.appspot.com%2Fo%2Fcompany_logos%252Fmeta.jpeg%3Falt%3Dmedia%26token%3Da7a5bcc0-e178-4b5b-b71e-09bf6c6aefae&w=48&q=75){kind=small}
![Entry-Level Software Engineer [L3] at Google company logo](/_next/image/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffirebasestorage.googleapis.com%2Fv0%2Fb%2Ftech-career-growth.appspot.com%2Fo%2Fcompany_logos%252Fgoogle.jpeg%3Falt%3Dmedia%26token%3D780356ef-3efc-4728-9eb4-d909b75bb4a6&w=48&q=75){kind=small}
Discussion
(2 comments)- 1
3 months agoSenior Engineer @ Amazon, Founder @ Roman Yusufov CoachingThis is a case where it's even more important to build a brag sheet and document your accomplishments. In the absence of a title to reflect your scope of work, you need to have solid metrics to back up what you did.
This may require a more involved discussion with recruiters down the line, but I would prioritize skills and growth, especially as an entry-level engineer. It's much easier to "catch up" at your next company if you have the skills without the level than having the level without the skills. - 0
3 months agoTech Lead @ Robinhood, Meta, Course HeroAs a heads up, flat generally has a different meaning: A "flat" organization is one where there aren't many layers of middle-management, not that there aren't formal IC-levels. Flat organizations are generally good as there are less politics and bloat - You 100% want to work for tech companies like those. "Tall" organizations are a nightmare to work for (believe me, I've been there).
Having talked to multiple engineers there, they all agree that by their first 1-2 years, they’ve taken full ownership of a vertical in their respective teams and some even leading cross-team collaborations. Would this be considered top-end E4/E5 level scope?
If the quality of execution is there, this is indeed higher mid-level to senior scope + behavior.
And while title is just a string, I worry that recruiters will use your ambiguous level against you? For example, if you’re an engineer with 2 yoe demonstrating E5 level behaviors without the title, how would recruiters level you?
This is definitely a huge downside of a company with no titles, which is generally why startups tend to add titles pretty quickly. I joined Course Hero as engineer #20 or so, and they added levels a couple months after I joined.
In your scenario, the recruiter would almost certainly level you at mid-level or even upper junior, especially if they're a FAANG recruiter. I could easily see Google leveling this hypothetical engineer at L3.
All this being said, don't worry too much about lack of levels at a startup. 1 of 2 things will happen:
- You join a great startup which grows a lot - At these kinds of companies, you want to work there for at least 2 years, maybe even 5+ to see them through to IPO. The company will almost certainly introduce levels during your tenure there.
- You join a bad startup which doesn't grow - The startup never gets big enough to the point where levels make sense, and you probably just leave it after 9-12 months.
