- Two of those applications were ignored. No response at all from the recruiter.
- Another jumped on a call to say the requirements were "dumbed-down" to get more diverse applicants to apply. Women tend not to apply for jobs they think they are unqualified for.
- Last was pulled as I was told I had to go through the promotion process.
I was shut down right when I inquired, and told that the company wanted some outside talent. Wow okay, even though my performance reviews were dazzling. So they hired two guys who had zero familiarity with the industry and zero familiarity with our stack. One had to be fired because he was insane and did nothing all day but try to be some motivational speaker in a technical role. I liked the other guy, but it was another person I had to explain stuff to when he had preconceived notions that were incorrect. He was cool, but HR/execs really screwed up the positioning.
There was a later time when they were going to have a leadership vacuum. I decided it best to quit at that time because they were going to ask me to help by advancing _only_ when they needed me as a backup. However, when I asked them to advance, they just said not interested. So too bad, had a better offer to advance elsewhere and their interest in me was clear.
"Their interest in me was clear."
Exactly this.
Enlightened and effective leadership would pair a "not this time" response with a series of career development meetings, resulting in a tailored path for advancement; not as detailed as "this job, then that job, then that," but informed enough to show the candidate that they were heard and valued.
An additional bone in the form of a small raise and or training would also be effective.
And of course the plan needs to be reviewed periodically and sincerely, for adjustments and progress on the part of both parties.
I don't think 'passive-aggressive' is the appropriate term, because there's not likely any conscious action by the company in these circumstances. You've applied, someone else was selected and that's it.
There's a tiny bit lack of self awareness on this thread with people with 'qualifications' assuming that there's some kind of implicit right to move up higher in the company. When they chose 'someone else' it's usually for a reason.
It's a pyramid, and just above manager it's really narrow there are just very few of those jobs, it's very circumstantial as well.
Looking outside might get you a sense of 'market value' and of course, there may simply be more opportunities elsewhere, but ultimately, the same structural limitations remain overall.
And finally, I would say that after various positions both contributor, managerial and also staff (i.e. reporting to VP's but without a team) - I'm not sure if most people recognize what the trade-offs are, the pay is nice but usually comes at a cost.
If you're doing something you remotely like, if you have a half-decent manager, and you're getting paid somewhere near a reasonable rate - you're already winning. Anything else is gravy.
> assuming that there's some kind of implicit right to move up higher in the company.
This is so far from the truth in my situation, but yet you feel self-righteous in your judgement that it is laughable. I know your type.
The company I worked for deliberately used the "reorg + redeploy = attrition" strategy to avoid lawsuits because they had been repeatedly sued for their focal procedure over several decades, and this was a known method for avoiding getting rid of people who didn't want to work 80 hours a week.
And thanks for mansplaining how management works. A "pyramid?" Wow, insightful, that never occurred to me after 30+ years. "Market value?" You don't say! I'm overwhelmed by your astute, 101-level observations of business practices. I guess you got that from the VP's you reported to, weirdflex but OK.
As a someone who has done a lot of hiring: 'I know the type'.
Has it occurred to you that stereotypes tend to annoy people whether they are false or true?
Also, if you, off the cuff, evaluate someone you don't know at all as unsuitable for something, quite possibly they have information that tends to rule out your hypothesis, like that they were able to do in a different environment what wasn't possible in a previous one.
No need to be sexist.
NLRB would be a good place to send a complaint in these situations.