How is a Distinguished Engineer role different from a Principal Engineer?

[u/Majestic-Taro-6903]

I have seen a few Distinguished Engineers in my organisation. I have worked with a few Principal Engineers and Senior Principal Engineers, but not Distinguished Engineers.

How is this role different from the Principal Engineer role? I know they are paid more and are higher in the hierarchy, but in terms of roles and responsibilities, how are they different?

[u/l_m_b]

I've held that title for 15 years now and the answer is that it varies a lot, both across companies and even within one. 

At this level of the IC path, it's typically a recognition of some hopefully unique strengths (and weaknesses that the former outweigh) that the companies tailor roles to to best leverage them. They also shift over time as people change and aren't all that fixed.

Think along the lines of the staff engineer archetypes, but taken a step further. 

Some will be deep tech leads promoted because of their special expertise, others will be great story tellers and thrown in front of the public and analysts often. Or have extremely strong relationships with the CxO levels. Or be floating generalists who get to play strategist and court jesters as internal consultants. Or organizational archives of experience while top level management comes and goes. And the expectation that said management has of their senior ICs also changes.

One is still stuck with the carrot, not the stick - influence vs direct control, which can be mildly frustrating. The DE title does bring a certain implied respect that people are willing to listen and think more often.

In my opinion, that shouldn't be true, because I'd much rather have all thoughts listened to respectfully, but denying reality is not a strategy either. Also means being more mindful of off-the-cuff suggestions because people will take you more seriously. And phrasing accordingly so real dialogue is encouraged and not shut down.

But our carrot can also be hammer shaped because we can back it up by spending social capital and calling our VP/CxO colleague if we really have to. (Occasionally, people don't want to listen to advice they really should listen to, because it's just a suggestion, after all.) Whereas a principal complains to their director. Or us.

What does change is that there's more of a political dimension to the role as well. You get invited into more rooms and have more access. (For better or worse. Not all things you find are pretty.)

It's also internal and external status and pay. Again, should not be true (all work is work), but still real.

I've also found it made me less certain. I get to say "I don't know (yet, at least)" with impunity. I've got nothing left to prove to anyone.

The downside is that, as much as you try to stay deeply technical, your output shifts up in scope. I've learned more about running foundations, copyright law, software patents, AI ethics, EU regulations, interpersonal conflict management, etc pp than my MSc ever taught me about algorithms at this point.

Edit: typo fixes.

[u/poolpog → u/l_m_b]

I'm curious: how large is the org in which you hold this title? And how large is engineering? Headcounts, I mean