We’ve seen that our current Career Path has shown clear limitations that have arisen due to the very fast growth we have had. A year ago, we were already discussing some of these limitations but during 2023 more of them have appeared.
This document wants to explore and analyze these limitations and provide a proposal to overcome them. It intends to spark discussion but also to bring to the table a first Career Path proposal.
Our previous career path has been with us for a long time, with its pros and cons. But time has shown us that it has some weak points we want to address in this new definition.
In our current Career Path, the 6-month review cadence process got distorted to the point that it became almost like a de facto promotion every 6 months, no matter the seniority, no matter the impact or growth, completely distorting what a natural and organic growth is: increase of knowledge, skills, impact, responsibility, and experience.
As one progresses through the career path, entry-level tiers are an explosion of inputs in which one should grow very quickly, but senior tiers require more time to consolidate skills, obtain the desired impact or master very specific knowledge so it makes sense that the review cadence is adapted to this natural rhythm.
Transitioning from Senior to Staff is not a straightforward process and requires not only a clear consolidation of skills and impact but also a change in the scope and range of action.
The impact that is expected from a Staff Engineer in Factorial can be defined as ‘inspirational’ and ‘cross’ which means a big difference from the previous tier.
Managing people and navigating through the angry seas of uncertainty takes its toll and it’s completely normal that someone wants to go back to the technology track: we should support and encourage this.
However, what once was a good feature has become distorted and rules have been bent in a way that the pendulum movement can be seen as a hack when being a manager gets tough.
And more importantly, we have underestimated the reasons behind this change. Why does a manager want to return to the IC path? The challenge is big: managing people, having more strategic responsibilities, or having a wider scope and vision. And, right now, it doesn’t seem rewarding enough.
Our People team has conducted a study of our compensation comparing Factorial to the rest of the companies in the SaaS/Tech space in Spain.
The information contained in that analysis shows that the base compensation for Engineering Management roles in Factorial is below the market (the 50th percentile) of similar positions in other companies of the industry.
On the contrary, base compensation for IC roles is above except for the Senior Staff.