They lose in every timeline. The US would have nuked them.

??

It’s fine for the usual straightforward and easy problems – problems that common developer tools and paradigms have solved. Like a product that reduces to CRUD with a few boolean expressions, joins, and simple algebra mixed in. But I think it’s inefficient maybe even unworkable for harder problems. And hard can be scale, like moving up two orders of magnitude in throughput or entities, or down in latency. Or hard can be algorithmic stuff.

I highly agree with what others have said here, that a culture of “fungible engineers” can alienate those who want to go deep. Some folks enjoy being subject matter experts or are drawn to a craftsmanship aesthetic. And, IMHO, a healthy org culture should work for all kinds of people – specialists and generalists. I think you should aim for and encourage people to grow to be T shaped rather than fungible cogs.

Ask former coworkers to say how great you are on LinkedIn. :)

Social proof can help.

Hey, don’t be discouraged.

You are a treasure and rare. There are places for folks like you. I hope you can find one where the culture fits you and knows your value.

Until then. You can try to change the culture. But if that’s possible depends on more than I know for your context.

With small teams it’s easier. Demonstrate competence, gain trust of everyone around you, then sell a better tomorrow where … Stuff just works. Faster velocity, more features, fewer bugs, etc.

This is a very valued message in some places, and totally not in others.

I have a feeling that infrastructure/platform/core teams – those making tools for other engs – are probably more naturally aligned to quality and lower defect rates. That may be a direction for you if you aren’t sure where to start aiming towards.

Dang, sorry. Maybe your manager sucks and isn’t teeing you up for it or being clear about it? Or heck maybe your org just sucks.

Is this for interviewing or promotion?

At my org the formal definition is “[demonstrated] ability to lead projects at x scope.” This is how people leaders frame it.

But to individual contributors (engineering track) folks, I think we are looking for:

• Thinks. Applies themselves to the hard work of figuring things out. Reads documentation for libraries and languages to get how to use them. Doesn’t vomit up random groupthink (from the wider org or web) without understanding it.
• Curious: doesn’t take “this is how we’ve always done it” as a thought stopper – wonders if there’s a better way. Flexible, open to learning.
• Teamwork skills: communicates own level of certainty, listens to others and tries to understand – not stubborn: honestly tries to figure out the best solution rather than trying to look smart in front of others. Has a feel for how to help everyone be heard and add their thoughts to the group decision.
• Communicates clearly-- excellent written documentation for spikes/designs/decisions is a clear stand out here. (easy win with high visibility)
• Can start to participate in meta/scope and product type conversations around “hey this is stupidly hard why don’t we just do this slightly different thing that’s way easier” (extra credit at this level)

How to show this when interviewing vs getting promoted is different.