Understanding Senior Level Professionals: Expertise, Experience, and Management

[Zap]

What makes someone a senior level professional? I've seen senior level positions requiring 2-5 years experience. However, you could have 2-5 years experience doing really basic things. My colleague was promoted to a senior level position after about 3 years of professional experience. My feeling is that he did not really have an expertise, but rather requested more and more responsibility and handled himself well after doing so.

I guess my question is, what is the expertise that is required to be considered a senior level professional, generally speaking? Additionally, does it require expertise, or is general work experience all that matters? Also, is something like management experience required?

One more thing, as a level one slime who just does what people tell them to do, how would you fast track yourself into a management role and assume more responsibilities?

 

[hutchphd]

I think "senior level" specifics depend upon the type of position. In my experience it just means the top rungs on any of the various career ladders. Typically the process of climbing that ladder leads to a greater breadth of skills, a facility for quicker results, and (a smaller) increase in technical skills.
I think as "a slime" it behooves you to always treat those who request things from you as valued customers. Try to give them better than what they request and tell them early about any problems. This goes for superiors, colleagues, and inferiors in the food chain. The surest indicator of the quality of a human is how they treat those with less power.
If there is someone who you admire as a scientist or manager, pick their brain from time to time. Ask for advice or help with a problem. If there is someone who you do not admire, avoid them to the degree possible...or ask their opinion about something; you might be pleasantly surprised.
Do you job and do it well. If that is not the key to advancement in your organization, I suggest a different organization.

 

[gmax137]

how would you fast track yourself into a management role and assume more responsibilities?

Assuming more responsibilities is as easy as being there and saying "I can do that."

As to fast track into management... I see younger employees with this desire; and I get it: managers have better offices, they may have more opportunities to talk to the customers, they have higher visibility within the company... But there's nothing worse than a manager who knows less about the organization/business than their reports do. A good manager knows the business, knows the customers, and knows what the other groups within the company do. Getting to this point takes time.

Another personal point. Being a manager means taking flak when your project falls behind schedule, or when things just don't work out. In other words, when your group is late or over budget because your guy Bill is a lazy idiot, you're the one getting blamed for it. Or the customer increases scope but not budget or schedule --> your problem. Some people can deal with that better than others.

 

[Vanadium 50]

because your guy Bill is a lazy idiot, you're the one getting blamed for it

And as a manager you should be blamed for it. As a manager, Bill is your responsibility. And, as you say, some people can deal with that better than others.

 

[gmax137]

And as a manager you should be blamed for it. As a manager, Bill is your responsibility. And, as you say, some people can deal with that better than others.

Quite right! So you may start out with a STEM education and at work you're doing calculations or computer modelling, or whatever.

Once they make you a manager your problems may be distinctly non-STEM: How do I get Bill to work harder? If I fire Bill how is he going to feed his 2-month old baby? If I keep Bill on, hardworking Mary is going to be pissed and she might leave...

Personally, I didn't spend my time in school learning diff-eq's so I could worry about Bill and Mary. But that's me. Some companies recognize this and have a "technical path" as well as a "management path."

 

[Zap]

Hmm ... The psychological aspect of management doesn't put me off.

It seems to me that one must manage people in order to really be successful.

 

[sysprog]

It seems to me that one must manage people in order to really be successful.

I've never managed people $-$ even so, I think that I'm not unsuccessful $-$ the computer does what I tell it to do $-$ I successfully report to the recipient of my work what it was that I told the computer to do $-$ and other stuff $-$ I think that a person can be successful without being a boss of any other persons $\dots$

 

[Choppy]

One more thing, as a level one slime who just does what people tell them to do, how would you fast track yourself into a management role and assume more responsibilities?

Climbing the hierarchical ladder is full of nuance and idiosyncrasies specific to the given hierarchy, but I can offer a few tidbits of advice based on my own experiences...

• Management Qualifications and Training
  You don't necessarily need an MBA to become a manager, but having some kind of management training before you need it gives those in the position to promote you something objective to elevate you among your peers. It's also a clear way to demonstrate your interest in a management role. That's not to mention the obvious...acquiring the managerial knowledge and skill sets that come with such training.
• Be a Leader Without a Title
  It's easy to spot natural leaders... the people who organize projects, the ones you can rely on to keep their team on track, meet deadlines, who other people gravitate toward for advice, carry a high level of personal integrity etc. While you can't be "all things" you can make an effort to spot and seize opportunities as they come up and even create them for yourself. When the opportunity for a management position comes up, you want to be the person who independently organized training seminars, or chaired the safety committee that reduced workplace accident rates, or was the local trainer/expert for the new software that rolled out, or commissioned the new technology, etc. Often this means volunteering to do the things that no one really wants to do.
• Understand the Big Picture
  It's easy to got to work, do your job well, and go home. But to be an effective manager and leader it's important to understand more than your own roll. You need to understand the organization's goals, and how all groups and individuals function toward meeting that goal.
• Develop your "People Skills"
  As alluded to above, management is about organizing people, and there are different ways of doing this effectively. Develop and practice skills like initiating crucial conversations (those elephant in the room conversations that no one wants to have, but can be critical to effective cooperation), empathy, dealing with "difficult" people, conflict resolution, etc.
• Networking
  I realize this is one of those buzzwords that's easy to say and challenging to actually do. But particularly in large organizations, it pays to learn who's responsible for what and make meaningful connections with them. And if you're interested in a particular position--let people know about it. Generally speaking, people want to see others succeed and will be willing to help you achieve your goals, but in order to do that, they need to know what those goals are.
  
• Personal Conduct
  They say to dress for the position you want, not the position you have. And this doesn't mean just wearing a suit and tie. How you present yourself on a daily basis matters--the tone of your emails and texts, your ability to express yourself, how you act when things aren't going your way, how approachable others find you, etc.

 

[russ_watters]

• Be a Leader Without a Title
  It's easy to spot natural leaders...

In my opinion, this is by far the most important and at face value the easiest. Most people will repeatedly find themselves in team situations where people stare at each other, wringing their hands, waiting for someone to take charge. Be that guy.

[edit]
Quick anecdote: I don't often take public transportation, but I do occasionally do long-term parking at the airport. There's a shuttle that stops at all the terminals and then takes people to the long-term lot and stops in a bunch of places (it's a big lot). It's a double-loop, so people are either getting on or getting off, not both. I take a seat near the door if available. Most people will stand by the door to make it easier for them to get off when it gets to their stop. The problem is, that quickly clogs the door and prevents people from getting on a bus that is only half full. Most people will just stand there like idiots/jerks and let it happen/be the one creating the problem. One time, the driver announced: "I'm not moving until we let these people on." Nothing happened. So I started pointing and making orders: "You: move back there." "You: move over there." It only took two or three before a path was opened and everyone got on the bus. In many cases, it's really that easy to be that guy; you just have to choose to do it.

 

[CrysPhys]

Hmm ... The psychological aspect of management doesn't put me off.

It seems to me that one must manage people in order to really be successful.

Only if you aspire to success in a career track that requires you to manage people. This is true if you formally hold a supervisory rank and in fact manage one or more staff members (in some instances, there are people who hold a supervisory rank, but do not in fact manage anyone). This is also true if you formally do not hold a supervisory rank, but, e.g., manage technicians and other support staff; or, e.g., serve as a project team leader.

But there are career tracks that do not require you to manage people. In most instances, however, even if you do not manage people, you will need to collaborate with people to be successful. Even then, there are exceptions; e.g, in some (rare) instances, if you are exceptionally technically brilliant, you can get away with being a total jerk and still be successful.

(And of course, this whole discussion depends on your criteria for success.)

 

[CrysPhys]

I guess my question is, what is the expertise that is required to be considered a senior level professional, generally speaking? Additionally, does it require expertise, or is general work experience all that matters? Also, is something like management experience required?

The various levels are highly dependent on the company and, for large companies, even on the particular organization within a company. I spent most of my career in a Megacorps R&D lab. On the staff level, ranks were sparse. If you entered with a PhD (in my particular organization), you were a "Member of Technical Staff". If you chose not to become a manager, and were content with R&D, you could retire decades later (in the era before all the downsizings and layoffs, that is) and still be a "Member of Technical Staff". Salary bands were wide; in particular, the salary band for a Member of Technical Staff overlapped that of a Supervisor (Technical Manager). Most of us really didn't care about titles. At some point, HR introduced a formal dual career track (technical vs management), and introduced formal higher ranks such as "Distinguished Member of Technical Staff". But the numbers were tightly capped. It was really more of an honorary position, but gave some extra perks (such as an individual office, instead of a shared office).

Other companies have more ranks, such as "Engineer I, II, and III"; "Engineer" and "Senior Engineer"; "Scientist" and "Principal Scientist"; or "Researcher" and "Senior Researcher". These are typically based on education degree, years of service, accomplishments, performance reviews, and managerial support. I've found that titles are more important for more recent generations (e.g., millenials). I'm always astonished when I speak to my daughter and her friends. Often they covet a promotion (after one year!) and new title more than a salary increase; recognition is important to them. Large companies are constrained by uniform HR policies. But in small companies, bosses have wide discretion. If granting a fancy title will keep a competent, productive employee happy, and doesn't cost anything (such as a salary increase or more office space), they can cook up whatever titles they please.

 

[Zap]

Seems like there is an array of possibilities involved in the pursuit of a promotion.

My plan is to just get another job that is at a higher level, and hopefully be able to demonstrate expertise in a particular domain when that time comes (hopefully by the end of this year).

I would like to have a bit more management experience, which will likely not be possible in my current role, to insure that I will be able to get another job at a higher level. Hopefully, the studying and extra work I do related to my career will be enough.

Getting another job at the same level but with a higher salary is also a possibility and something I am planning to do within the year, if I cannot achieve a higher level position. This will likely not provide as much of a salary increase as compared with a new job plus higher level, but is a descent alternative.

Salary is probably the most important thing to me when looking for a job. Titles tend to be misleading, as I've come to find out. They are important, though. I put on my resume that I was a Python developer at my previous company, even though my official job title was only associate. I think that distinction is important. Yes, my official title was simply associate, but I was developing Python code, and Python developer is much better for the jobs and career I want to target.

My current job title is pretty impressive, but I'm not actually doing much at the moment to warrant it. So, that's another tricky thing I'm dealing with lol.

Thanks for the responses.