Seafaring for Women in Software Engineering – Part I – Performance and Promotion
beabytes.com
beabytes.com
Usually the subtext is that they’ve created a promotion process which is onerous, they are under paying you market rate, and/or management doesn’t want to make hard decisions or uphold their side of the bargain. The last thing I want to do as an IC after I’ve crawled through glass for several years to accomplish something Herculean is draft documents that defend my accomplishments from bureaucrats.
When I hear comments like that, I raise my eyebrows because it’s almost tempting me to apply elsewhere. I don’t know why, when presented with mountains of evidence, managers can’t just make a reasoned judgment call and grant promotions when appropriate, unassisted.
Usually higher ups constrain line managers of ICs with limited budget (most of the time you don't know what it even is). Moreover, the process is inherently flawed: I may help folks find opportunities for impact and it may even be great impact in my eyes, but eventually higher ups want to just promote the really really good people, which will inevitably result in comparing everyone with everyone. Most of the time I was not in these conversations.
It's unfair because most people work against some goal that's agreed upon, and later that year the criteria changes.
This is to say, no one is really in full control in some companies. In 12 years, I have yet to find a process and surrounding environment that promotes fairness. When there's limited money and a true meritocracy is enforced, there's loss of control. Yet, managers should own the message of why you don't get promoted, even though you should in their eyes and there's no clear reason for the outcome (EDIT: other than "someone, somewhere was better than you" in some way which is very disempowering).
People not doing this is why it stays as it is.
If you don't like your broadband provider; you change it. If you don't like a car brand; you don't buy it. You don't buy them and claim their deficiencies are unfair.
Demanding change can also work, and regardless of whether better alternatives exist.
"Just move to a country where women can vote" was not an effective strategy, demanding the vote worked for a huge number of women without them even moving to the next town.
You thought A is great but you think you can find better so you go to B. They turned out worse, you then tried C and those weren't great either. But now A won't hire you back because they already filled the position, and there are no other available companies doing the thing you want to do. Now you're stuck with inferior employment options compared to the choice of not changing jobs in the first place, unless you're willing to do something else entirely or start your own business.
Depends on the field obviously, but there are reasons why people might want to stick with a not-so-bad job instead of looking for a perfect one.
In my "big tech" company, it's in the interest of my manager that reports are promoted. The question of promotion is discussed at every evaluation cycle (6 months). We usually decide of a plan with the manager to have the right signals to show for the next cycle.
Also, not mentioned in the article, but is it an heresy not wanting to be promoted? Actually, I just refused working on a promotion recently. Next level means more responsibilities, change of focus, more meetings, more pressure.
N.B. I’m not saying that higher up ICs influence things by coming in and saying, “I am an IC6 and I think we should do it this way,” but they often have more opportunities to have the right conversations, and have hopefully learned good influencing skills along with technical skills.
I've been around the block enough times to know this, but I still hate it. Why do we give so much of our only lives to this system?
> So there is no incentive for a manager to promote you or give you a raise unless you ask for it.
Even if you do, theres still no incentive. The only incentive is threatening to leave when the cost to the org of your doing so is greater than the cost of promotion.
Couple of points:
1. The above are why (after 30 years as a dev) I'm trying to build something on my own. But its hard.
2. I'm not a woman, but the points above aren't really gender-specific. I do appreciate the substantial additional challenges faced by women in tech, though.
I'm a young man, but I'll definitely be using some of these in the future as I'm very early in my tech career.
As a male that scores higher in the agreeability personality metric than the average female and that females average much higher in that metric than males cross-culturally I am in a unique position to reflect on this. People that measure higher in agreeability do worse at administering their own needs even after they are aware of what needs to be done, so career elevation then becomes a self-reflection challenge as much as an administrative challenge.
As a point of consideration think about why/how the military does a much better job of retaining and promoting females than does the tech industry despite it being a far more masculine environment. One reason is that the military strongly advocates the administrative guidance in the article over and over again. Secondly, there is a deliberate process for promotion in the military that requires completion of education at each level and a minimal time in grade. There is no mystery or social mastery to the process.