Hacker News Reader

lol all of this advice is tailored towards crazy people at crazy companies. in a sane work environment it works quite logically -

1. You have an employee who has been with the company for years and thus has lots of hard won experience and knowledge about the particulars of your company

2. They have already been groomed for and shown potential to perform well in a lead role

3. You promote them to lead and pay them what they are worth, knowing that paying market wage is better than taking a gamble on a new hire and paying them market wage anyways.

its worrying that this kind of weird political shit always ends up highly voted in comment threads, because it colors your expectations. work for good, trustworthy, competent people, forget about this meta scheming bullshit and focus on doing your job well.

> all of this advice is tailored towards crazy people at crazy companies.

Given high turnover, that is probably most people though.

The thing is: not everyone wants to be a “leader”, and rejecting a promotion is basically saying “goodbye” to be company that is offering you the promotion. I was in this exact same situation: I ended up quitting because I’m not a “leader”.

If you’re in high tech (FAANG) the salaries have been going up so quickly year by year since 2000 that staying in one company for more than a few years is often irrational if you’re trying to maximize salary. Companies will gladly pay you an extra 50-100k a year just to steal you from a FAANG.

Your points make total sense though. Companies lose out by not having employees who have built up institutional knowledge, but in today’s market most of the people who companies want the most are likely to leave for greener pastures in 2 years.

This, frankly, seems ridiculous.

A common complaint is that it is too difficult to have career growth without changing companies and that promotions and raises are difficult to come by because companies don't care about developing their people. What you are saying now is that it is also bad if a company promotes people from within, since it encourages people to leave. Both options (never promote / encourage growth) can't be wrong.

IMO, this is not the way it works at any reasonable place. I've had zero engineers under me leave over the last four years and I attribute that in large part to me being able to meet their career growth goals within my team.

The problem with offering promotions to people already in your company is: what if they don’t actually want the promotion? (Promotions involve more responsibilities and not everyone wants that). And usually, Rejecting a promotion is seen as a bad thing (“oh, Joe doesn’t look ambitious enough!”).

You obviously talk to them first.

Rejecting a promotion can be seen as bad in toxic places or for junior engineers, but I actually like hearing this from my reports because it means that I don't need to make changes to accommodate their growth.

In practice it isn't supposed to be like this. You should be working with your manager over 2 to 8 quarters or more to plan the promotion. The promotion will be won from a committee by your manager. The expectations should be clear.

Have you also been able to adjust their salaries accordingly? My interpretation is that rather than saying, "don't promote internally from IC to Lead" GP is saying "here are some pitfalls with that approach" and suggests that it can work fine if you can bring their compensation up fast enough that the money isn't greener elsewhere by the time they can spin their newfound leadership experience into a job offer.

Extra responsibility/accountability/risk without corresponding compensation reads like a promotion to some folks, but to other folks it looks more like a pay cut.

I don't think this is practical for any reasonably sized company to hire all their lead/manager positions from outside. I agree, it is probably better to follow your option (a), but does not looks like companies do that proactively. Looks like the whole edifice is centered on the fact that people don't have enough time in their hands to go find a job somewhere else.

> If they succeed, then you will almost certainly be unable or unwilling to pay them what some other similar company would pay them now that they have proven their ability as a lead.

This assumes all companies are unable to pay market rate for leads. Otherwise it is mathematically impossible.

So, easy fix is raise pay for internal people when they prove themselves in new role and match market salary.

And who is that external lead? The guy your describing but from company b.

But that person can be paid what they're worth without Politics and horse trading because it's a hire (The Market, etc), not a promotion.

Sorry, what does IC and PIP mean in this context?

IC = Individual Contributor

PIP = Performance Improvement Plan

And more realistically Paid Interview Practice.

Individual Contributor and Performance Improvement Plan

Individual Contributor (primarily makes stuff directly rather than working through other people) and Performance Improvement Plan (supposedly a plan to improve performance, but often actually just HR making sure they have watertight documentation justifying sacking the person).

Adding on that though some people can come through a PIP and fix whatever problem they were having it usually is a pretext to being fired.

It's called "Paid Interview Prep" for a reason :)

What's the alternative? If they are really good they will leave anyway, so challenge and coach them until they do.

Failing miserably is less likely given you have some "success in role" criteria they are clearly demonstrating beforehand.

Not sure I follow the burn concept here? If they are shitty why promo, unless you want the initiative to fail? If they are good see above

If they are really good then either figure out how to pay them (a lot) more, or don't put them in a higher responsibility role. Promotion without a pay bump equivalent to what they'll get from a move to another company might as well be a firing.

>If they succeed, then you will almost certainly be unable or unwilling to pay them what some other similar company would pay them now that they have proven their ability as a lead. They will stick around for a while, but once something starts to go wrong anywhere on their team or in the company (and it will) they'll realize that it's probably going to be several years before there's any potential to climb the ladder any further, and they start to sniff around for what they should be making, and you'll lose them.

Oh wow. This was the EXACT thing to happen to me.

Haha, this also happened to me.

Although in my defense, I was actually thinking of leaving the company before becoming lead. In fact I probably stayed longer than I would have otherwise due to the opportunity.

This has happened to me twice as well, which is why I raised it. I've also seen it happen to people I've promoted and was unable to get up to market rate, who I had extremely honest conversations with as they became disillusioned and ultimately supported as they left for greener pastures, and that's when I realized it's a systemic problem. I'm not being cynical or scheme-ey bringing this up at all, it's just the (bigco, mostly) reality, and directors need to be aware of it.

Additionally, there also might be one or two ladder climbers in the lead's org who considered themselves "sure thing" for that lead promotion. They did not get it because you promoted someone else. They will be disillusioned and are very likely to be gone within a year. An unfortunate, but natural consequence of the fact that there are always fewer opportunities to lead than there are people looking to grow. Make sure you can handle losing the overachievers who finished in 2nd place.

Your company promotes directly from tech lead to director?

I'm now at a startup, so no (director == founding exec until you reach a certain size). But yes, for some definition of "lead" which involves managing a bunch of people as well, and director, which involves managing a bunch of managers, that's something that happens.

Small team tech-only leads who are not managing people will not typically be promoted to director levels at most big companies, but if you're actually managing people and your skip-manager loves you, it's totally possible even if your team is small.

What’s your final advice about C-levels? Looks like you ended the comment early. Thanks.

Manager => director has a lot of the same pitfalls as IC => manager/lead. I was trying to imply that this is a recursive problem.

Give them some meaningful compensation in options.

both a and b involve paying more