1. Most HR departments use "Senior Software Engineer" as a catch-all title for techies. Irrespective of the title that work gives you; you should name yourself as an Architect or Technical Lead or Consultant, or all of the above for the various roles that you've done (any other role that you can back up with from your experience and skills). So long as you've been doing that work there is no harm in that. Your skills and experience should back you up in the title, whether or not the actual title of the role was such.
If you retain the title of Software Engineer, then that is all that recruiters will view you as.
2. Remember; YOU OWN YOUR CV/RESUME! You can write whatever you like and think will sell you best. Don't say you're a Chess-Grand-Master if you aren't but write that which sells you and your skills and shows them in the best light. You don't need to write everything; focus on your strengths and those areas that show your team leadership and advanced skills. Structure it appropriately and you'll be able to include all your skills (so you appear in search results) and target your strengths.
3. Look for some certifications in an area that interests you that if you tag to your resume/CV will give you the leg up you need. PRINCE 2/PMP/ITIL if you're looking for management leanings; MS/SUN/Oracle architect/DBA certs if you want to keep a foot in dev.
4. Get an MBA or MSc in a specialisation.
5. Find a niche - personally, I'm in Security, but there are plenty of others out there.
6. If your present company won't give you the opportunities, leave and find a place that will. If your skills and experience isn't recognised, then there's no point playing the sucker for them.
7. Double check yourself; the problem may be with you. Work on your soft skills: Make sure people like you (don't become a kiss ass, but just try to get on with people - especially managers); Work on your communication skills (Email, powerpoint, speaking, presenting, mentoring, documenting, making a proposal).
If you don't want to be a slave to a manager/HR hiring you, then you can always go the start-up route. I have little to no experience here, so I'll just leave that hanging as an option. :-)
While I agree in theory with #1 & #2, there's a very real element of danger there. Many places will only provide a reference for start date, end date and title/position.
If you self-grant and put "Lead Architect" on your resume and your reference check comes back with "No, that wasn't his title. His title the whole time was Senior SWE.", how's that going to look?
If you want to choose your own title, and you've been doing good work for your current company, propose a new title/role for yourself.
To the OP: if you want to find ways to have a bigger influence, but you don't want any stink of management to get on your hands, you may have a long road ahead. While you don't necessarily need to formally lead (and review, set comp, etc) as a career manager, you're probably going to have to do things that look a lot like management of one form or another: technical, project, career/people, or a mix. It's hard to have a significantly larger impact without doing something beyond individual contributor work.
This is very well put together.
I think the best part is that he doesn't overplay or browbeat the point.
The World changes, but it certainly takes a while for us to catch up with it...
What the article has missed is the fact that these cameras and their operators are less interested in crime and far more interested in fine-able offenses such as motorists parking incorrectly; stopping in the wrong place; driving too fast; people putting their rubbish out on the wrong day; people putting the wrong rubbish in the recycle bins; or whatever else they can bill you for to pay off the bank-bailouts.
Local councils are milking these cameras for all that they are worth. Most of the cameras aren't even watching crime spots, but are instead focused on the roads at stop signs etc. Given the added revenue - irrespective of the crime prevention stats - those cameras are here to stay.
Well but that's sort of the point. I think 99% of the people on earth would be in favor of camera setups like this if there was some way to guarantee it would only be used to catch murderers and rapists. But it's a slippery slope and once you put that power in the Government's hands they will almost certainly abuse it.
You're probably right about the cameras being a permanent fixture in London. But the fact that Government officials are using them more for minor infractions than serious crime is a lesson that may prevent setups like this in other places.
Is this an attempt at FUD to stop people from going overseas for inexpensive treatments? Or is my cynical conspiracy theorists hat on a little too tight...
