The FAANGs and similar corporate environments and even academia have unhealthily competitive "up or out" cultures. In those places, people are simply not allowed to not care about success or they'll get washed out because of low promotion velocity.
Presumably, you would get bad reviews because you weren't doing the things for that level (it wasn't clear to me if you would be told that you were going to be evaluated at that level), and then you'd get on a 'performance improvement plan' and then likely terminated.
Thankfully, I wasn't a manager for long, and didn't have to see that happen.
But some orgs may be fine with terminal MI (~CME) L4s.
Given that L3 is basically entry-level at Google, it also suggests that they aren't doing much up-or-out anymore. Basically you only have to get promoted once?
There are often team members that are at terminal levels, not interested in promotion, but doing well relative to their level standard (i.e. performing at or near the next levels). Those team members often won't be happy with a "meets" rating and still expect a rating and bonus multiplier above "meets."
Meanwhile, had they been promoted, they'd probably be a solid "meets" and another team member that wants/deserve a promotion needs those above-meets ratings too.
Ratings distributions usually aren't bound to just one single level, nor are they done with all levels as a single bucket, but within certain level groups, having a terminal level + rating distribution shaping is an issue.
no "official" up-or-out in any of those, but definitely a thing in all of them. at a mid-to-senior level or above you're getting paid -- not FAANG pay, but in most cases pretty solid -- and you need to justify your existence. If you're not getting "atta-boys" on the regular then you're gonna get chopped.
One place fired all of the Architects, for example, because they felt they didn't really do much. Three quarters of "what does this team do to deliver" and they were gone.
> The FAANGs and similar corporate environments and even academia have unhealthily competitive "up or out" cultures.
If given a choice between "up or out" and "up" is not what one wants to do (for whatever reasons), then "out" is the only path which might lead to happiness, as "here" is not an option allowed.
I’m not sure why you came up with this statement, I’d love an explanation. Certainly people are apathetic about many things at FAANG, but they are rarely apathetic about their own career. No one is particularly happy about “coasters” (people who may or may not be coasting but aren’t playing “the game”) who are quite frankly singled out for victimization and almost everyone would rather that they quit.
- "No one is particularly happy about “coasters”" - your word, your assertion
- quite frankly singled out for victimization and almost everyone would rather that they quit: I could see it, heard horror stories about Amazon, Google had great work/life balance. It absolutely was not expected you were busting ass for promo. Infamously you'd usually get a better grade by doing less. It was a "don't like tryhards" culture.
> ... people are simply not allowed to not care about success or they'll get washed out because of low promotion velocity.
And you state:
> Simply untrue. FAANG would be _very_ happy to not have to promote.
So how is what I wrote; "Simply untrue"? Or did you mean to reply to the GP and not me?
Completely true. Not for all of them, but at least one.
You're doing it wrong. This is about politics, not happiness. If you aren't moving up, then you're a loser like the rest of us. Have to climb for power and money.
See Peter Principle, etc...
He (IC5) clearly was not interested. He was happy with the pay and did not want all the other BS/Responsibilities that comes with Staff.
Perhaps I am, perhaps not. It depends on what one values I suppose.
> This is about politics, not happiness. If you aren't moving up, then you're a loser like the rest of us. Have to climb for power and money.
"Power and money" are antithetical to happiness. Ultimately, one can choose to pursue the former, the latter, or neither, but not both. Which is "better" is of course subjective and the subject of much thought by philosophers for millennia.
Choose wisely.
But yes, I wrote a scifi novel about a computer hacker and occasionally post it here. Calling me a "shill" for trying to promote my book seems harsh.
Have you ever tried to accomplish anything in your life? How would you suggest a new author gets their work outlet there?