Being a Principal Engineer is the dream.
Not because of the title - though the title matters. Because of what it represents: the highest recognition an engineer can earn as an individual contributor. A seat at the table. Technical authority. The moment where your experience, your judgment, and your craft finally converge into something the whole organization can feel.
Some companies place Sr. Principal and Distinguished Engineer on a separate track entirely, signaling that the skills required there are a different class. So for most engineers, Principal is the summit.
The common belief about what gets you to Principal is reasonable: be a strong leader, master your craft, own ambiguous and impactful projects, mentor others and help them grow. Check those boxes and the promotion comes.
Except it doesn’t. Not always.
In the AI era, this gap is getting wider. AI is raising the floor on technical execution. The difference between a great Staff Engineer and a Principal Engineer is less and less about who can write the best code, and more about who understands the business well enough to know what to build, why, and when.
I’m currently coaching three Staff Engineers who are checking every box on paper. Talented, respected, hardworking. And all three are stalled.
Each one for a different reason.
These are real people, so I’ll use fake names to protect their identity. Everything else is real.
Story 1: John - Already too busy
Story 1: John - Already too busy
Everyone loves John.
He’s the Staff Engineer people go to when things get hard. Brilliant, collaborative, generous with his time. He works on the most important initiatives at his company and mentors engineers along the way.
And every time we talk, John is exhausted.
Not the good kind of tired that comes from meaningful work. The kind that comes from not knowing where to put your energy next. Low energy, stretched thin, overwhelmed - and still wanting to take on more.
It’s no surprise that his manager has already started filtering the projects they give John. Quietly protecting him from too much input because they’re not sure he can handle it.
That is the gap.
John also strongly prefers meetings with more than 48 hours notice. Gets frustrated when plans change. Struggles when the day doesn’t go the way he expected.
At Principal Engineer level, most of your days will not go according to plan. Things will break. Impromptu conversations will happen. Curveballs will come from every direction. The business can’t guarantee organized, predictable input. What it can give you is trust that you can handle the chaos.
The skill John is missing is not technical. It’s the ability to catch everything being thrown at him, process it in real time, and decide: what do I take on, what do I put down, what do I delegate, what needs more context before I have an opinion?
Navigating chaos. That’s the job.
If your manager is filtering input to protect you, you cannot grow into a role that requires you to generate and manage it.
Story 2: Lucy - Futuristic & Scattered
Lucy is the kind of engineer who commands a room. T-shaped generalist, exceptional communicator, deeply knowledgeable. When Lucy talks, people listen.
The problem is what she’s doing with all of that energy.
Lucy spotted a pattern: her org has strong technical capabilities. She became focused on finding problems across the company that those capabilities could solve. On paper, this sounds like Principal Engineer behavior - big thinking, cross-org impact, ambitious scope.
In practice, it looked different.
Lucy was writing solution documents before understanding what the other orgs were already doing. Her proposals added complexity and dependencies to teams that already had other plans. The receiving orgs didn’t buy in.
And inside her own org, leaders hadn’t mapped these as problems worth solving. Lucy was working in a silo, bringing proposals nobody had asked for and nobody was ready to support.
On the other side: Lucy’s own org has no shortage of big, meaningful problems. There are plenty of opportunities right in front of her to demonstrate breadth, depth, and technical leadership.
But those problems felt less exciting than the bigger canvas.
What Lucy needs isn’t a bigger canvas. It’s deeper roots. Becoming a trusted lead within her own org first. Understanding what her leaders want to support, what problems actually matter, how to build the collaborative foundation. Then expanding outward.
Influence travels outward from a strong center. You cannot skip that step.
Story 3: Anna - Too helpful
This one may surprise you.
Anna is one of the most technically strong engineers I work with. She goes deep. She troubleshoots complex problems. She genuinely cares about quality and about the people around her.
And that is exactly the problem.
Whenever someone on her team - or another team - has a blocker, Anna shows up. She helps. Every time. Without question.
While she does that, her own projects sit still.
At the end of the year, Anna has helped dozens of people move forward. Her fingerprints are on a lot of good work. But when you look at what she delivered herself, the picture is thin. Projects stalled. Some were canceled or reprioritized while she was still working on them.
Then there’s the perfectionism.
When Anna takes on a problem, she solves it the best possible way. Technically thorough, architecturally sound, always with something more to add. One more detail. One more edge case. One more improvement before calling it done.
The combination is brutal: slow progress because her time is always split, and a definition of done that keeps moving.
The shift I keep pushing Anna toward: pragmatic solutions grounded in data. What does the business actually need right now? What’s a must-have versus a nice-to-have? Helping others is part of the job at this level. But leading means delivering results yourself.
Helping everyone else move forward while standing still yourself is not a path to Principal.
The common thread
Three different people. Three different gaps. One pattern underneath all of them.
John, Lucy, and Anna are technically strong. Collaborative. Well-regarded. None of them are missing the skills most people think get you to Principal.
What they’re missing is intention.
Principal Engineer is not the reward for being excellent at Staff Engineer. It’s a different job. The difference is this: a Principal Engineer doesn’t just execute well. They understand what the business needs from them right now, and they shape their energy around that.
Sometimes that means fielding requests from every direction and distributing them across the team. Sometimes it means stepping back and letting someone else’s good-enough solution ship. Sometimes it means saying no to an interesting problem because it’s not the right problem.
It requires awareness - of the organization, of the gaps, of how you’re perceived, and of whether your work is actually moving the right things forward. Not what makes you feel useful. Not what makes you look good. What the business actually needs.
A Principal Engineer identifies the gaps, understands the mission, and anticipates problems before they surface. Then makes meaningful improvements in service of that mission.
That is not a technical skill. It’s a blend of business acumen, technical depth, leadership, and influence - all pointed in the same direction.
What to do differently
If any of these stories felt familiar, here’s where to start.
Understand the business: What is your organization’s strategy for the next 6 months? Where is growth coming from? What are the biggest bets? If you can’t answer those, that’s the first gap to close.
Find one problem you can solve today. Not a future problem. Not a cross-org initiative. One real problem inside your current organization that you can move on now. Solve it. Ship it. Build credibility from there.
Identify one gap nobody is owning. Where is there space for you to step in and create real impact? That’s your opportunity.
Build a plan, then share it with your stakeholders and peers before you start executing. Get input first. That’s how influence is built at this level.
Ship pragmatic solutions with clear milestones and business value. Not perfect solutions. Solutions that work, deliver value, and can be iterated on. Define what done looks like before you start.
Principal Engineer is not the finish line. It’s the beginning of a different kind of work - one that requires you to understand the business as well as you understand the code.
Start there.
I would say John needs to check his priorities not everything is important and urgent at the same time, this would help him to focus more energy on what really matters, also when you are yes to something you are saying no to something else every task/project start is a trade off.
Lucy needs to improve her people skills, to be able to understand their pains and leg-wide pains. So then she could shuffle through them I see which pains would return the most value for the company.
Anna needs to learn to say no more times a day. She needs something like airplane explanations about oxygen masks “First help yourself then help your kids”.
All things said come with practice and I am sure they will get there 🙏