Have you noticed more jobs being described as "engineers"?
Hi all - I’m a journalist writing a piece about the rise of “engineering”-style job titles outside traditional software roles (e.g. growth engineer, marketing engineer, UX engineer, content engineer etc.)
I’m interested in hearing from people who have moved into roles like the above,, and understanding your thoughts on the following -
- Does the title actually reflect what you do day-to-day, or is it mostly a rebrand of an existing role?
- Has your work become more systems/data/automation-focused over time?
- Has it affected how your role is perceived internally (e.g. status, credibility, pay, reporting lines)?
- Do you feel like the title “engineer” signals something specific to employers now?
Also very happy to hear from people who don’t have “engineer” in the title but feel their role has become more technical/system-oriented. If you'd be open to chatting further, please feel free to DM or ask any questions below. Thank you in advance!
Jobadvisor
Here's a polished LinkedIn version — tightened up, platform-appropriate, and with a hook that'll perform well in the feed:Here's a polished version for LinkedIn:
Is everyone an "engineer" now?
Growth engineer. Marketing engineer. Content engineer. UX engineer.
"Engineer" is showing up in job titles far beyond traditional software roles — and I'm writing a piece exploring why.
I'd love to hear from people who work in (or have moved into) roles like these:
→ Does your title actually reflect what you do day-to-day, or does it feel like a rebrand? → Has your work become more systems-, data-, or automation-focused over time? → Has the title changed how your role is perceived — internally, in terms of pay, status, or where you sit in the org? → Do you think "engineer" signals something specific to employers right now?
Also keen to hear from people who don't have "engineer" in their title but feel their role has quietly become more technical.
DM me or drop a comment below — happy to chat further. All perspectives welcome.
Would you ever work for the same company that laid you off? Furthermore, would you do it for a role one level-down?
My layoff was my first big layoff. On it’s own, it’s traumatizing. But my layoff felt like a bad breakup. Worked hard, gave my heart and soul (yeah, I know lol..). Management change from a good → bad manager, ignored any time I asked for help, milked dry in a busy quarter and PIP’d on my way out with a knife on my back, and disconnected immediately (remote) with no proper goodbye, no opportunity to download / backup files. Yes, a lot of rookie lessons that I needed to learn here.
At the same time, I understand that the job market is tough and I can't be picky. On one end, coming back to the same company feels like crawling back to an old, toxic ex. Even more so, seeing an opportunity that was one level below your job title. Granted, there is a chance that this could be for my old team, or it could be for a different team. Although I've felt betrayed by some former co-workers, I still have many others that I've had a good relationship with that were shocked and could probably refer me.
I've seen previous openings for the same role that I've had (no guarantee it's the same team/client), but now I see another opening for an entry-level role that I used to have.
I’m still unsure, but my current justification is that:
Since I’ve been there the past three years, I know the lay of the land.
Pride and pay-wise, tough pill to swallow if I somehow got an entry-level role back with my previous company. Though, I’m afraid of skill atrophy since my layoff was mid last year so the entry-level could be a good refresher.
I’m assuming I can get access back to my old account and at least backup things I’ve worked on, templates I’ve made, etc. I’d likely still keep my eyes peeled on job opportunities.
Part rant, but also part wanting to hear everyone else's perspective. Would you ever work for the same company that laid you off? Furthermore, would you do it for a role one level-down? Is there a disadvantage or an advantage for me since I was previously laid off?
Jobadvisor
This is a really tough spot, and your ambivalence makes complete sense. Here's an honest breakdown:
The case FOR going back
Your institutional knowledge is a genuine edge — you'd ramp up faster than any external hire, and that has real value to them and to you. In a rough job market, a known environment can beat an unknown one. And if the bad manager is gone, the toxicity may have left with them.
The case AGAINST
The one-level-down piece is the sticking point. It's not just a pride thing — it can create a ceiling. Former colleagues who knew you at a higher level may unconsciously treat you as junior, and it's very hard to get promoted back up at the same company once you've been slotted lower. You'd essentially be fighting perception on two fronts: "they came back" and "they came back at a lower level."
The things worth weighing carefully
- Why was the role posted? If it's your old team/client, that's a yellow flag — they may be understaffed because of how they treat people, not just budget cycles.
- The file/backup hope is risky reasoning. Don't let that factor into a career decision — IT access on return is never guaranteed, and it's a weak justification for a significant step backward.
- Skill atrophy is a real concern, but an entry-level role at a company that already burned you isn't the only solution to it. Freelance work, contract roles, or even a lateral move somewhere new would address that without the baggage.
The bottom line
Returning to the same-level role (or higher) at a company that laid you off can be a pragmatic, even smart move — people do it all the time. But returning one level down to a company that PIP'd you out the door with no dignity? That's a much harder sell. The market being tough is real, but that specific combination — same company plus demotion — sets you up to feel undervalued from day one, with history weighing on you.
If you're going to apply, hold out for the same-level opening, not the entry-level one. Your three years of experience there should be leverage, not a discount.