Philosophy of Progression
Many engineering career frameworks focus heavily on technical knowledge, creating an incomplete picture of engineer growth. Through our own experience, and conversations with engineering leaders across the industry, we’ve found that frameworks emphasizing “what you know” often miss critical elements of engineer progression.
For instance, one framework we encountered defined staff-level engineers only through their deep technical knowledge, using analogies like “knows more about knots and rope-making than anyone else”. While technical expertise matters, this narrow focus fails to capture how engineers work, what they achieve, and their broader impact on their organizations. The consequence of this approach is that seniority becomes non-transferable — an engineer’s level becomes too tightly coupled to specific domain knowledge rather than their ability to create impact in varying contexts.
Waypoints therefore tries to take a more comprehensive view, grounded in established patterns of professional growth and skill development. There are four foundational models which are worth calling out:
- The Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition, which describes how you progress from novice to expert
- PMI’s Competency Framework, which outlines development across technical, performance, and interpersonal dimensions
- Bloom’s Taxonomy, which maps cognitive development from basic understanding to creative mastery
- Kegan’s Constructive Developmental Theory, which offers insight into how peoples’ ways of making meaning evolve as they progress, from seeing their role in concrete, transactional terms to understanding more complex organizational and interpersonal dynamics
Understanding the patterns that emerge from these models helps explain why our framework is structured as it is, and why certain approaches to supporting engineer development tend to be more successful than others.
Foundations of Engineer Growth
Engineers develop across multiple dimensions simultaneously, like runners who must build both cardiovascular capacity and muscular strength. Technical skills progress from following patterns to intuitive mastery. Ways of understanding problems evolve from concrete to nuanced and contextual. Scope of impact expands from individual contribution to organizational influence.
This multi-dimensional growth creates compounding effects. An engineer who better understands organizational context makes better technical decisions. Better technical decisions create more opportunities for impact. More impact creates opportunities for broader organizational understanding. These reinforcing loops lead to greater impact than if you only became a better and better coder.
Natural Progression Patterns
The most effective progression frameworks work with, rather than against, the natural patterns of growth surfaced by the developmental models listed above.
Expanding scope happens naturally as engineers develop deeper understanding of their work’s context. This expansion flows from individual contributions to team impact to organizational influence. The framework creates space for this expansion while ensuring engineers maintain connection to hands-on work.
Deepening capability goes beyond accumulating knowledge. Senior engineers don’t just know more — they see problems differently and make better decisions faster. This evolution of mental models enables them to tackle increasingly complex challenges while helping others develop their own capabilities.
Growing influence emerges through demonstrated impact rather than formal authority. As engineers progress, they shape how their teams approach problems, influence technical strategy, and ultimately help define engineering culture. This influence stems from consistently creating value through both technical and organizational contributions.
Supporting Natural Development
Understanding these patterns helps us create environments where engineers can develop sustainably.
Growth opportunities should stretch engineers across multiple dimensions simultaneously. Technical challenges should be paired with opportunities to develop broader impact. Projects should create natural pathways for expanding scope and influence.
Evaluation needs to consider the full spectrum of engineering impact. Technical excellence matters, but so does organizational influence and the ability to drive meaningful outcomes. Assessment should look at both immediate contributions and longer-term capability building.
Career paths aren’t linear or universal. Some engineers progress rapidly while others develop deep expertise within their current scope. Both paths create significant value when supported effectively. The framework should create space for different growth trajectories while maintaining clear standards for each level.
Looking Forward
This understanding of engineer progression reveals why certain practices tend to be more successful than others. Frameworks that focus solely on technical knowledge miss critical dimensions of growth. Programs that force linear progression ignore natural variation in development paths. Systems that separate technical excellence from organizational impact create artificial constraints on engineer growth.
By working with rather than against natural patterns of development, we create more sustainable paths for engineer growth—paths that benefit both individual engineers and their organizations. This framework attempts to capture these patterns while remaining adaptable to different organizational contexts and individual growth trajectories.