Staff engineering is measured through leverage

Staff level engineering is not defined by taking the hardest ticket or writing the most code. Its impact appears through the decisions, systems, and people that enable many teams to deliver better outcomes after the individual contribution is complete. Work at the constraint Find the recurring issue that limits several teams: an unclear ownership boundary, unreliable delivery path, fragmented identity model, missing operational standard, or decision that no single team can make alone. Confirm it with production evidence and the people doing the work. Not every broad problem belongs to a staff engineer. The work needs a clear outcome, sponsor or accountable owner, and enough organisational readiness to act. Otherwise influence becomes commentary without change. Create durable mechanisms Useful outputs include a shared contract, migration path, reference implementation, decision record, platform capability, operating review, or mentoring structure. The artifact matters because it allows others to execute without repeatedly asking its author. Write for the next engineer. Explain constraints and trade offs, not only the final design. Build feedback into the mechanism so it improves after adoption. Lead through context Bring product, security, operations, data, and infrastructure constraints into the same decision. Surface disagreement early and distinguish a technical fact from a preference. Make a recommendation with consequences, then support the accountable decision even when another option is chosen. The StaffEng project documents several shapes of staff plus work and the organisational context around them. Titles vary; the consistent theme is influence beyond one team or codebase. Measure the system change Look for reduced decision latency, fewer repeated failures, faster onboarding, safer releases, clearer ownership, successful migration, and teams independently using the new path. Avoid claiming leverage from meeting count, document volume, or framework adoption alone. Share credit and make successors. If every important decision still requires the same individual, the work has created dependency rather than leverage. Staff engineering combines technical depth with organisational design. The strongest contribution is often a system in which many engineers can make good decisions with less coordination and lower risk. Select work with a leverage test Ask whether the problem affects multiple teams, whether solving it changes a durable mechanism, whether you have access to the required decision makers, and whether success can be observed. A complex isolated task may need senior technical skill without being the highest leverage staff level work. Write a short problem statement with current evidence, affected groups, why local solutions have failed, and the decision required. This creates a boundary and prevents a broad initiative from becoming endless “alignment.” Move between altitude levels Staff engineers must connect strategy to production detail. At high altitude, explain why the capability matters and which trade offs the organisation is making. At low altitude, inspect interfaces, failure modes, migrations, and operational evidence deeply enough that the direction is credible. Remaining only at one level produces either disconnected vision or locally excellent work without organisational movement. Build a coalition and succession Identify owners from the teams that must implement and operate the result. Involve them in shaping the contract rather than presenting a completed design. Delegate meaningful decisions, document context, and create maintainers who can evolve the system without returning to its original author. Personal review checklist Periodically ask: Which recurring decision became easier? Which production risk decreased? Which team can now move independently? What operating burden was removed? Who else can lead the next phase? Also record work deliberately stopped; focus is part of leverage. If the primary outcome is that the staff engineer became busier or more central, the intervention probably needs redesign.