There are so many comments in this thread that amount to "it's just a fancy title". With respect, I think these comments (and also the original article) are missing the mark. Generally, the staff+ engineer role is accountable for the technical architecture and output of a large team over a long-term horizon.
How large a team? It varies but I'd say at least 25 and often much larger. How long a horizon? As far as the organization can plan. They generally report to someone with a title like Director or VP and advise that person and their staff (typically managers and other staff engineers) or do high-level technical work needed, like evaluating a new technology or system that the team wants to invest in or depend on.
The consequence of this is that the "day to day" of the role is highly variable based on what the org needs at the time. Sometimes it's hands-on development for tricky technical tasks, sometimes it's talent development, sometimes it's dealing with escalations or emergent issues.
I think this high degree of variability plus the fact that a lot of the "staff meeting" work is not visible to line engineers contributes to the confusion about the role.
How large a team? It varies but I'd say at least 25 and often much larger. How long a horizon? As far as the organization can plan. They generally report to someone with a title like Director or VP and advise that person and their staff (typically managers and other staff engineers) or do high-level technical work needed, like evaluating a new technology or system that the team wants to invest in or depend on.
The consequence of this is that the "day to day" of the role is highly variable based on what the org needs at the time. Sometimes it's hands-on development for tricky technical tasks, sometimes it's talent development, sometimes it's dealing with escalations or emergent issues.
I think this high degree of variability plus the fact that a lot of the "staff meeting" work is not visible to line engineers contributes to the confusion about the role.