Engineering progression

Engineering organizations that grow beyond a few dozen people quickly hit the limits of informal career talks. The article opens with a real-world case from VirtusLab, where a simple ladder introduced in 2017 worked for years but cracked as the company expanded from 50 to 400 engineers. The author pinpoints the root cause: mixing management expectations with core engineering work and adopting roles like Principal Engineer without checking fit. Those early mistakes created vague, broad statements that later needed a rewrite.

The piece then explains why most small or flat companies can get away without a formal ladder-direct communication and limited processes make informal agreements workable. But once you cross the 40-50 engineer threshold, communication becomes noisy, promotion decisions decentralize, and the need for explicit expectations spikes. The author cites examples such as Netflix's shift from a flat model and the psychological need for career progression beyond tenure-based raises. The argument is that a well-designed progression not only clarifies salary bands but also forces leaders to surface values, align work with business needs, and improve hiring and branding.

Finally, the article offers a practical checklist: assess your organization's values, the nature of the work (product vs. services, regulatory constraints, maturity stage), and existing pain points. By grounding the framework in these concrete dimensions, leaders can avoid the generic, one-size-fits-all ladders that waste time and create debt. The takeaway is clear-building a progression is less about a document and more about a structured lens that aligns culture, work type, and growth goals, enabling teams to scale without losing focus or morale.