Also, their intuition about scaling is often wrong for a startup. It's not that the switch cannot be done, just that it's often easier to hire someone with the startup mindset already in place.
> FAANG engineers are usually pigeonholed into extreme niches and work with rigid longstanding systems. Startups need jacks of all trades.
My experience in one of the FANGs is the exact opposite: they value jack-of-all-trades that can onboard onto a new project at the drop of a hat and hit the ground running, regardless of prior experience. Their goal is to have organizations where engineers are perfectly interchangeable and replaceable if need be, which is key to fire whole teams without having any relevant impact on productivity.
It's recruiters who post impossible requirements regarding professional experience on specific combinations of tech stacks, which culminate in the old meme about job adverts requiring double-digit work experience in brand new tech stacks.
I've always found this an interesting topic — being proficient at large-scale but niche technical topics makes it difficult to move into roles when you need to be a generalist. This is especially true for mid-level engineers, where architectural and strategic decisions, team and stakeholder management, etc. are often done higher in the reporting hierarchy.
I've seen FAANG engineers apply for engineering roles outside of "big tech" over the last two years (owing to the layoffs.) And, at least as it comes to "old economy" clients (like banks, financial services, airlines, etc.), agencies, and consultancies, the skill-gap is huge for the money and seniority that is desired. Likely, this is all true for start-ups.
I believe the skill pathways diverge too quickly — at a certain seniority or specialisation it's very difficult to move laterally between FAANG and non-FAANG organisations. Where as mobility within FAANG or within non-FAANG organisations remains high (job vacancies permitting.)
It's also noteworthy that at least some FANGs value engineers who are jacks of all trades and in general make it virtually impossible to specialize on topics, and whose average tenure hits around 3-4 years.
This contrasts profoundly with the job requirements posted by your run-of-the-mill recruiter, who looks for years and years of specialization on specific tech stacks.
7 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 29.5 ms ] threadMy experience in one of the FANGs is the exact opposite: they value jack-of-all-trades that can onboard onto a new project at the drop of a hat and hit the ground running, regardless of prior experience. Their goal is to have organizations where engineers are perfectly interchangeable and replaceable if need be, which is key to fire whole teams without having any relevant impact on productivity.
It's recruiters who post impossible requirements regarding professional experience on specific combinations of tech stacks, which culminate in the old meme about job adverts requiring double-digit work experience in brand new tech stacks.
I've seen FAANG engineers apply for engineering roles outside of "big tech" over the last two years (owing to the layoffs.) And, at least as it comes to "old economy" clients (like banks, financial services, airlines, etc.), agencies, and consultancies, the skill-gap is huge for the money and seniority that is desired. Likely, this is all true for start-ups.
I believe the skill pathways diverge too quickly — at a certain seniority or specialisation it's very difficult to move laterally between FAANG and non-FAANG organisations. Where as mobility within FAANG or within non-FAANG organisations remains high (job vacancies permitting.)
This contrasts profoundly with the job requirements posted by your run-of-the-mill recruiter, who looks for years and years of specialization on specific tech stacks.