[deltaburnt]

It really depends on the engineer. I've seen some engineers in that exact position you describe, their job description says they influence the org broadly so that's what they set out to do. They struggle against a political and technical machine, vying for power, and trying to build a fiefdom.

Other engineers I've seen (a smaller sunset) have that job description more as an observation of their skills and influence. Their mandate isn't to influence, they just do. They are respected for their vast knowledge, historical success, and insight. So they naturally are heeded by most, and consequently they broadly influence the org.

Both cases sound miserable in their own way, but if I had to choose I'd much rather land in the latter. The latter still involves some politics, but at least it sounds like you're not wasting your life playing stupid games.

[the_af]

I would rather land in the latter too.

I actually don't mind that some people are good at influencing others, through well earned respect, good communication skills and technical chops.

I resent it when it becomes a mandate and some official "badge" in the career ladder. I'm suspicious of these principal/architect types who "parachute" out of nowhere into teams and projects, because it's "their mandate", ask lots of questions, mess with stuff, and then leave and don't take responsibility because "the team owns the project, not them". I've seldom seen this work well. A lot of teams end up politely ignoring what these types say, because they know if you're not a true stakeholder, what you're saying doesn't matter.