In relativity, each traveler traces a path through spacetime. Along that path, the traveler’s clock measures proper time, the time personally experienced. Observers in other frames may disagree about how much time has passed, but the traveler’s clock does not. Each clock keeps the true account of its journey.
At Curioz we think of careers the same way. The closest analog to proper time is the portfolio of visible outcomes: what you have shipped, led, published, fixed, and improved. A career advances not just with years but with skill applied and work invested. Motion is the work itself and the way it is done. A front-end developer shapes usability in short, collaborative loops; a project manager earns trust over longer arcs of alignment and delivery. Different paths through the work accumulate outcomes in different pace.
Source: Jacob Kaplan-Moss, "Role Title Terminology"
With this frame in place, we move from analogy to evidence. We set up our Curioz instruments, take readings, and see how career clocks compare.
Every career has its own proper time, measured by outcomes, not years.
Poland’s shorthand (Junior 1+, Regular 3+, Senior 5+ (6+ preferred), Leaders ~8+) is handy folklore, but it rarely drives real decisions. Intuition tells us the reality is not that simple: roles are defined less by tenure bands and more by scope, decision rights, and the types of problems they’re accountable for. Rules of thumb are fine until decisions need to be defensible. That’s why, using Curioz cohort data, we treated each role like a calibrated clock and took market readings. For every role carrying a “Senior” label, we marked three time-averaged ticks, like intervals on a dial:
Seen as instruments, these clocks reveal role-calibrated experience, not a one-size rule. Each role keeps its own time and its own scale, and the right reading is against role-specific markings, not a universal yardstick.
We suspected it, and the numbers back it up. Curioz shows that “Senior” isn’t a fixed bar in Poland’s IT market; read the dial left to right and the averages climb steadily. That gradient supports defining roles by scope and decision rights, not just years.
QA Automation 5.4 yrs → Frontend 5.8 → Backend 6.1 → Data Scientist 6.8 → Software Architect 7.7
QA Automation centers at 5.4 years (span 4.2–6.6), where stable pipelines make impact measurable early, but compress the senior runway. Frontend lands near 5.8 (4.7–6.9), with UX velocity accelerating visible outcomes, yet breadth often plateaus without platform scope. Backend anchors at 6.1 (4.8–7.4), closely matching the familiar 5+ / 6+ preferred language baseline many teams use. Data Scientist arrives later at 6.8 (5.5–8.1), because value compounds once models are in production and tied to revenue. Software Architect peaks latest and widest at 7.7 (5.9–9.4), reflecting system-level choices that set cost and speed for years and often map to Lead or Principal at the far edge.
Data lets us measure each career clock, not just imagine them.
In our Curioz relativity-of-observation theme, the market is a moving observer, continually redefining seniority over time. As months pass, demand shifts, new tools replace old ones, and hiring priorities change. All of this alters how many years count as Senior.
What was “6+ years” yesterday may expand to “7+” tomorrow, or compress to “5+” in another year. The definition is not written once; it is continuously recalibrated by the market’s moving clock. Each role traces its own path: some stretch longer as expectations rise, others compress when leverage, tooling, or pipelines enable earlier readiness.
This is why we track the percent change in the minimum required experience for senior over time: the graph captures not just a number, but the fact that the number itself is in motion, a shifting standard that reveals more about the market’s frame than any fixed rule of seniority.
Each role carries its own trajectory. For Software Architects and Data Scientists, the bar stretches outward, up roughly 7 to 8 percent by August 2025, reflecting added complexity, governance, and strategic ownership. For Backend Developers, the line creeps upward more modestly, consistent with steady expectations in a mature discipline. Frontend oscillates before resetting to neutral, suggesting that what “Senior” means here has stabilized. QA Automation, by contrast, compresses; time bends backward as better tooling and changing team dynamics allow earlier arrival at seniority.
This is why we plot percent changes rather than absolute years: the story is not whether the number is five, six, or seven %, but that the number itself is moving. Seniority is not static; it is a market-driven recalibration of experience, a clock that ticks differently depending on demand, leverage, and technology. And while monthly movements matter, the real shift does not happen in a single year; it takes a longer horizon to meaningfully redefine what “Senior” means.
The market’s moving frame recalibrates “Senior” over time, track changes, not absolutes.
Seniority is as relative as everything else. Roles advance through time, shipped outcomes and mastered complexity. The market moves as its yardstick keeps shifting with demand and innovations.
What counted as “Senior” at 6+ yesterday can stretch to 7+ tomorrow, or compress to 5+ in another year. Outcomes matter more than years. At Curioz we analyze real profiles at scale and keep adjusting datasets as seniority signals evolve by role and over time. A single number is less important than its movement, and the true redefinitions only become visible over longer horizons. Context is key. Companies are moving observers as well, and in part two we shift to their frame.
Markets move faster than hiring cycles. By the time a traditional recruitment process delivers, the opportunity may already be gone. Talent-as-a-Service (TaaS) solves this gap by giving companies direct access to expertise when they need it. And the model works best when the talent is Senior Specialists.
1. Immediate Impact
Senior professionals bring years of battle-tested experience. They do not need weeks of ramp-up; they can diagnose problems, set direction, and deliver outcomes from the first sprint.
2. Versatility and Judgment
Seniors have seen multiple tools, platforms, and organizational models. They know what works in practice and can adapt quickly, choosing the right solution without costly trial and error.
3. Autonomy and Speed
TaaS thrives on lean setups. Seniors do not need heavy supervision or hand-holding. They align with stakeholders quickly, self-manage effectively, and keep projects moving at pace.
4. Fewer Mistakes, Built-in Guardrails
Because they have lived through failures before, Senior Specialists naturally design with risk, compliance, and scalability in mind. This means fewer blind spots and less technical debt over time.
5. Knowledge Transfer That Lasts
A Senior Specialist does not just execute. They leave behind architectures, runbooks, and best practices that the internal team can own and extend long after the TaaS engagement ends.
TaaS is about speed, flexibility, and reduced risk. Senior Specialists magnify those benefits by delivering not just capacity but judgment, reliability, and long-term value. Companies get the expertise they need, exactly when they need it, without waiting months for a hire or committing to permanent overhead.
Senior Specialists make TaaS work. They turn on-demand staffing into on-demand impact.
Competitors are already moving. Add a TaaS QA Automation Engineer now to keep your edge, and compound it every sprint.
NOTE: This post is based on research by Inuits.it and Curioz.io, and has been crossposted on both platforms.