There's something to like in this article. For example, it's rare to see accountability emphasized at all much less in line with control. They are indeed two sides of the same coin.

Being right on systems problems or indeed chem eng, hard math problems is probably harder than the article implies ... but the author's main point isn't there ... so water near a bridge.

It's effectiveness at a systems level that is the focus, and that's a great focus! So let's get straight: to move from an IC to senior or principle anything means a wholly different task set and measurement stick, which most readers already know to one degree or another.

This article however leaves me a bit flat on how. I'm reminded of the matrix of challenges, of accountability and so on -- a reminder here and there is not bad; it's even good --- but that's not far enough by a long shot. The consequences of sin is death may be a strong moral truth, but it leaves the other 4 bazillion details un-named and un-handled ...

To start making a dent in these larger issues:

- where does engineering stop and management begin ala Deming, Crosby, Drucker, Ishikawa?

- what are the salient differences between upper management, middle management, and TLs in this context? What are their roles and responsibilities, and how do they enforce each other?

- how does one's org handle conflict ... because leadership will invariably put a laser beam on some kind of corporate American BS within the constraints of power struggle. (Think moving on-prem DCs to the cloud.) Let's not pretend, as the article artfully if implicitly implies there are ways to get stuff done without tension or blow back. Some people are quite stubborn!

I could go on ... there are many diffuse interlocking issues here well beyond the scope of a single senior engineer.

The longer I am alive the more and more I believe upper management plays a huge role in these issues ... When's the last time upper management was held accountable? When's the last time upper management stopped by your team in any capacity whatsoever? Measured positively on a project you worked on?

If the c-board dropped dead tonight... would it matter to you?

I'll leave it here on upper management: middle management, tls and ics will run amuck in politics, bs, with holding info (my better half manages cloud migrations was told by a finance lady that data re: on-prem costs is need to know only, and they wouldn't release it unless the on-prem senior manager agreed first while at the same time c-board said move it all to aws), if upper management is stupid, lazy, afraid, or also is playing politics.

You wanna have all your guys pull in the same direction, to know and name customers inside and out, to take cross functional coordination seriously?

Only upper management can set the tone on that. I've seen first hand cboard aloofness tremendously complicate all these issues and burn out talent.