We recently covered the topic of Technical Architects (TAs) being undervalued in the Salesforce job market, gaining key insights from industry experts across the ecosystem. The debate raised some poignant thoughts, especially regarding the salaries currently being presented in job offers for TAs.
For Keir Bowden, the lower salaries that are being offered likely come down to market correction. During the post-COVID boom, companies had more room to offer higher salaries to TAs, perhaps undeservedly. Now that the job market is tightening, we’re seeing a correction to more realistic rates.
For veteran Salesforce Technical Architect Darrell Gallegos, that explanation misses the mark. In his view, the issue isn’t about correcting inflated rates but about companies failing to understand the true strategic value of architecture in the first place. I sat down with Darrell to capture these insights – he offered a sharp counterpoint to the “market correction” narrative and a deeper look at some other outstanding issues.
“I Don’t Think a Tightening Market Actually Means Much…”
As we’ve covered extensively at Salesforce Ben, the Salesforce job market is a difficult place to be at the moment – not just for TAs but for everyone across the board. But for Darrell, the architect issue runs far deeper than the market conditions or shifting salary bands.
The real problem, he argues, is that the job market conditions are being used as an excuse to justify lower pay rates.
“I don’t think a tightening market actually means much,” Darrell explained. “Just because the economy isn’t doing great doesn’t mean someone’s skills or value have disappeared. It might mean their abilities aren’t being fully utilized, but it doesn’t mean they’re not there.”
Darrell’s point cuts into a deeper point about what could potentially be going on in the Salesforce ecosystem at the moment. Even though demand for platform expertise remains relatively high, more companies may be deprioritizing the importance of strategy just to save costs.
Layoffs, hiring freezes, and tighter budgets may have led to short-term thinking, where cost-saving wins out over long-term scalability. As a result, highly skilled professionals like TAs are often sidelined or squeezed, not due to lack of ability but due to shifting internal priorities and reactive budgeting.
Elaborating on this, Darrell said: “The more strategically someone contributes, aligning with vision, business goals, and outcomes, the more valuable they are. But instead of recognizing that, companies use the market as an excuse to justify lower pay. Let’s be honest: the first thing companies do when things get tough is cut people. It’s the easiest way to make the numbers look better on paper.”
“I think it’s a slap in the face. You’ve got professionals dedicating time and energy, being responsible for critical systems, and when things break, they’re the ones who step in to fix them. A tightening market shouldn’t be a reason to walk back what someone is worth. It’s just a convenient excuse.”
The Red Flags in Job Advertisements: Undervalued and Overworked?
In my original article, I touched on the issue of companies not really understanding what a TA brings to a team and why this has led to an undervaluation problem. According to Melissa Shepard, A lot of companies at the moment “don’t understand what an architect’s supposed to be doing”, attributing it to not understanding the true skill set a TA has.
Darrell raised some concerns about the job advertisements that he has seen, where the description asks for what he described as a “laundry list” of lengthy expectations and requirements.
“When I see a laundry list of requirements and a job description that just goes on and on, it tells me they’re throwing a lot of ideas out there, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s what the project is actually about,” Darrell said. “A lot of the time, they’ve just looked up Salesforce and started copy-pasting whatever a System or Application Architect has listed in the marketing materials. That’s a red flag.”
Melissa also touched on the current importance of differentiating yourself by learning other systems, such as AWS, to ensure you stand out in job interviews. But Darrell is worried that expecting a lone Salesforce TA to have all this understanding of other platforms is just too much.
“I’ve been in the Salesforce ecosystem for about 10 years. I haven’t worked the past two years, but I started a decade ago. In that time, I’ve never been exposed to Marketing Cloud or, more recently, Data Cloud. So when a company asks for deep experience in every single cloud offering, I immediately question it. I don’t know many people who’ve had that level of exposure across all Salesforce products.”
“Maybe a handful of people exist with that kind of breadth, but if you’re truly using every single Salesforce product, that’s going to be a very complex architecture. It would also be expensive. You can’t expect one person to know all of that. If you do, that person will be stretched thin, pulled into every conversation.”
“When will they actually have time to get work done? That’s the problem. You can’t make one person the focal point for your entire Salesforce platform and expect them to manage microservices, AWS, CTI integrations, and stakeholder meetings.”
So not only are TAs potentially being undervalued, but they’re also not being taken care of, and are at risk of being asked to cover a lot of bases at the same time – potentially leading to burnout.
“When companies list all that in a single job post, it screams that they’re trying to put too much on one person. It’s highly unlikely you’ll find someone who can walk into that role and bring experience in every area. I’m not saying those people don’t exist, but they’re not your average four- or five-year architect. The kind of exposure and visibility being asked for just isn’t realistic.”
“And it’s definitely not sustainable. You can’t have one person putting out every fire, jumping from one issue to the next, constantly pulled into every discussion: ‘Hey, can you go troubleshoot this?’ ‘This is down.’ ‘We need you in this stakeholder meeting.’”
“You’ll burn that person out. And while I can’t guarantee it, I’d imagine anyone in that situation wouldn’t stick around long. The time commitment and responsibility would be too much for one person.”
Expanding the CTA Discussion: Too Expensive, and Losing Value
As we covered in our original article on the topic, the Certified Technical Architect certification (CTA) is one of the most valuable credentials in the entire ecosystem and represents a really deep level of expertise and understanding of the Salesforce platform.
Melissa Shepard, a veteran Salesforce TA, mentioned that she earned her CTA over four years ago, and the ROI on it has dwindled in the years following. “I think most businesses don’t know what the CTA is or understand its value,” Melissa explained. ”I’ve seen job postings that say they’d prefer someone with it, but they’re only offering $85 to $95 an hour. I just think, good luck with that.”
Darrell shared some similar sentiments in our discussion – and explained that it’s one of the pivotal reasons why he hasn’t gone for the CTA and has no motivation to do so in the future.
“Often, companies implementing Salesforce see ‘CTA’ and immediately assume that’s exactly what they need. But in reality, they might not fully understand the depth of expertise and experience that comes with it,” Darrell explained. “There are only around 600 or 700 CTAs globally, which demonstrates its exclusivity. Companies need to recognize this and reward it accordingly, similar to how doctors are compensated highly due to their specialized skills and limited numbers.”
“I’ve spoken with several CTAs who are vocal on LinkedIn, and one mentioned that the certification didn’t yield the expected financial returns despite significant time and money invested. It’s approximately $5K just to sit the exam – plus travel and preparation costs. To hear that someone didn’t experience meaningful salary growth after achieving such a prestigious certification is concerning. Personally, if investing that much effort and money doesn’t clearly enhance my compensation, I’d question whether it’s worthwhile.”
Darrell also touched on the motivations behind doing the CTA. While some do take the cert to challenge themselves – not necessarily looking for financial recognition – the cert should really be seen for what it is: prestigious, valuable, and very rare in the ecosystem.
“I’m candid about [the fact that] certifications should ideally elevate you into strategic conversations and leadership positions, not just serve as personal milestones.”
“People certainly have different reasons for obtaining a CTA, but when job descriptions casually list ‘CTA or System Architect required,’ they’re misunderstanding that these are very different certification levels. The scarcity of CTAs stems directly from the demanding experience, expertise, and cost involved – factors that should inherently command greater recognition and reward.”
A Call For Clarity and Communication
One of Darrell’s most significant grievances is that TAs are bought into projects after the most important decisions have already been made. By the time they’re onboarded, timelines have been created, budgets are locked in, and vague business goals have already been set.
TAs are then expected to deliver near-flawless outcomes within something that had no role in discussing or designing – and if things do go wrong, they’re left to explain what has happened.
A common pattern mentioned is that product charters are written without any architectural input, and product owners often gatekeep this important information from architects. This lack of transparency limits the impact and can create serious misalignment.
Darrell said: “I’ve worked for Capgemini, CGI, Appirio, Simplus, MTX, Deloitte, and was even hired by PwC. In every case, the interview process was focused on technical skills and past experience. The projects were large clients like PNC, Mattel, JLL, AT&T, NTG, Boeing, but even at that scale, the real strategic conversations usually didn’t happen until after onboarding.”
“Typically, Product Owners from the business side act as intermediaries. They often speak for a group of users at the feature or enhancement level, but they also tend to hide the broader details, for whatever reason. You’ll get a high-level sense of what the project is, but not the full picture.”
This overall lack of clarity adds more difficulties to an already complex role and adds to the overarching idea of being undervalued – not just when it comes to salaries, but also when it comes to important conversations in the workplace.
If the current situation around TAs is going to change, then transparency needs to improve.
“To me, Salesforce isn’t just a CRM anymore – it’s a critical business application. I’ve shared this view repeatedly on LinkedIn, and others are starting to see it similarly. Organizations are increasingly treating Salesforce as a central part of their overall architecture, not merely as customer relationship management software. Once people recognize its importance in achieving business outcomes, they’ll better understand why the role of the Salesforce Technical Architect is so essential.”
Final Thoughts
Speaking with Darrell has offered even more clarity on the ongoing discussion about the value of Salesforce Technical Architects. His candid perspectives underscore that this debate extends beyond mere salary considerations – it’s fundamentally about recognizing the strategic importance of architects within an organization.
Moving forward, companies should be reassessing how they value their Technical Architects, but also empower them to leverage their expertise fully so it benefits both the professionals themselves and the broader business outcomes they help achieve.
