Hacker News Reader

Comment by cgb223 | Hacker News Reader

I get this

I’m currently in a situation where my large tech company has clear criteria to be promoted and I am already measurably doing all of the things the next level does

Despite this, my manager says I won’t be promoted unless the other two people at the level above me “like” me

So despite meeting our company’s exact requirements for promotion that they do to make the process “fair”, I am being held at my level indefinitely until two people decide they like me as a person

Just ranting I guess. Not sure if anyone can relate / has advice here

View on HN

In large corporations promotions are frequently way more a product of “playing the game” than of doing work that’s related with your work. It makes a tiny bit of sense from the point of view that sometimes promotions involve developing a network of contacts and knowing how to use it. But only a tiny bit…

In small companies, promotions are very very rare, as the organisation doesn’t have a big structure.

Also, “objective criteria” is, at least in my experience, pretty nebulous, which make it quite subjective in practice

Meeting the criteria for promotion is not an obligation to promote, and as you have seen it the criteria isn't always comprehensive. Maybe you are just leaving some details out, but many places have multiple candidates for promotion competing for a finite number of spots. Often, recommendations and sponsors are needed, and you need to cultivate those relationships. You have to get along well with your peers to get things done, it isn't unreasonable.

I've been involved in the process elsewhere and just trying to give constructive feedback, since it's frustrating you. Can you elaborate at all on the type of promotion? If not, I can appreciate the need for venting.

At big companies, leveling is sold as an objective/descriptive measure of one's skills. An engineer is at level L if and only if they meet the expectations at L. If you aren't at that level, it must be because you lack certain skills from the rubric.

What you are saying is true but it contradicts that model. It acknowledges that leveling has extrinsic criteria such as finite number of spots.

Is it Goldman Sachs where everyone is a VP? At some point titles are meaningless.

Leveling rubrics are to prevent mutiny and by definition amorphous.

"Works effectively with others to deliver outcomes that... Earned the respect of peers who..."

Yes, but that's not limited to GS. As I understand it, the title inflation is an unintended consequence of regulations, tech, and cross-company contracts.

Workers are considered cogs in the machine, and only "sufficiently senior" employees are allowed to make any individual decisions at all. As a result, anyone who works with code and is required to actually solve any problems at all must be either "senior[tm]" or have one explicitly authorise every piece of work they actually do. For finance regulators and ivory tower governance people, agency is a terrible thing to allow for a drone.

Meaning? If you are in a role that requires to make choices and implementation decisions that affect production or path to production, you must be sufficiently senior. Ergo, a VP or above.

It's not just the regulations either - the contracts finance industry negotiates with each other also try to impose the same demands onto the other parties.[ß]

ß: I get to review these contracts at work. Some of the proposed clauses would require every possible change to be pre-approved by the most senior management.

In most places your performance review is about your performance, in the theatrical sense. It's all about winning over your audience, and high-quality work is just one of many ways to do that

Same. I've had my team and adjacent teams calling me a tech lead because I was filling that role like a natural. No promotion though.

I switched to another department and had that team and members of other teams think I was a senior dev. Also I was filling a role earmarked for people above my level, and getting rave reviews for it. Still no promotion.

It's all political BS.

What was your management’s response to the above statements?

They don't really have responses because they have no obligation to explain themselves. In my experience, the explainations I do get on other topics are often lies anyways.

In one case, they wanted me to take a 13% increase in hours in order to get the promotion with a 7% raise.

For the other case, they just don't care. The only feedback I got was that they wanted work done faster. Basically, I was split between a primary role and secondary role. They considered the secondary role an "extracurricular" even though per company policy it should be 10-20% of my normal time. So they wanted me doing my regular hours for the primary role and doing the secondary role during extra hours.

The big takeaway is that my company measures engagement by the number of hours you work, and have backroom policies that conflict with the written ones.

Thank you for your reply.

The "like" thing means make friends with the folks higher up and help them out work wise so they see you as a trusted ally.

What level is this for? Mid -> Senior?

Yes, politics plays a huge role. I've seen it play out that way many times.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com