Comment by palata | Hacker News Reader

Comment by palata | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Businesses don’t do promotions at senior levels because you “deserve” it. They promote those who have the highest potential to deliver outsized impact and value.

I guess it will sound like a nitpick, but to me it matters a lot:

They promote those they believe have the highest potential to bring value.

The whole thing is that the person who promotes you is a human in a dominant position. You can't change their mind about what they believe is a good reason to promote an employee, because they are in a position to feel superior.

If you want a promotion, you have to do whatever those with that power want to see in order to give you a promotion. If that involves bringing doughnuts every Monday morning, you have to do it.

Luckily, cargo cult means that those people probably all read the same kind of books, so a valid proxy may be to just read those books and try to fit in this completely arbitrary world. Coaches are people who decided that instead of reading those books to try and get a promotion themselves, they would just make a business out of reading those books and selling you that knowledge.

> They promote those they believe have the highest potential to bring value.

Thank you for writing that! That would have been my first comment as well. Due to the organizational hierarchy, there is a standard assumption that the company or the decision-makers within the company are magically capable of making objective assessments and decisions. Of course, this is not the case. But in the style of corporate language, there is often a strategic concealment of the fact that in every functional role, even at the very top, individuals work and make subjective decisions (hopefully competently, hopefully to the best of their knowledge and belief, but nonetheless always subjectively).

Unless you work in a metric driven role ( like sales ) - of course it's subjective. Also bear in mind the assessment includes not just what you do, but how you do it.

Not pissing other people off is an important skill, but at higher levels so is being able to make the right decision even if it's not very popular.

Being able to do both simultaneously is gold dust.

A lot of metric-driven roles are subjective as well. Most sales funnels are intentionally a random lottery. When prioritization exists it is often influenced by all those subjective categories like "management likes you".

As software developers we often see the raw data of this. The science often even isn't that hard based on the software you are asked to write how almost none of the "objective" metrics are truly "fair".

Metrics aren't an escape from subjectivity, they just smoke screen it. Companies love "rich get richer" lotteries and easily confuse that for "objective" or "fair".

Sure metrics can be gamed - I just wanted to acknowledge that some roles - like a forecourt car salesmen - the metrics are closer to performance reality than others.

An example of a near perfect metric is performance in an individual sport.

Your time in the 100 metres is your time in the 100m ( drug cheating aside ). However obviously that's the exception rather than the rule.

And those judgement things - like whether you are a team player etc ( you get the most sales, but that's in part by stealing them from others or actively sabotaging them ) - can also be really important ( but also unfair - they play golf at the same club ).

End of the day if a company isn't promoting on the right criteria, you are probably better off leaving - as the company isn't going to do so well long term, and your talents may be better recognised elsewhere.

That's also a judgement.

> Unless you work in a metric driven role

A metric is a proxy, always. Even for sales. If the sales increase but the satisfaction of the users decreases, that's not necessarily good.

IMO, the worst thing one can do with a metric is believe that it is subjective. Give me a metric, I will optimise for it.

Doesn't mean that having metrics is useless. It's just important to understand what they mean.

If you are in a company where all that truly applies - I'm not sure your best option is to look for a promotion - you'd be better off looking for another employer.

Even if you take the completely cynical view that bosses are out for themselves - then if after promotion you stay in their team, they are going to what to manage promotions in a way that makes them look good.

Now if what makes them look good is not related to improved impact/output then I refer you to by previous advice about getting a promotion by leaving, but most of the time it is - are you helping them hit their( the teams ) goals?

I guess my point is that when a coach teaches you how to get a promotion, the implicit assumption is that your hierarchy is following the same book as they are.

And the very fact that one needs to learn how to behave to get a promotion kind of proves my point. In a perfect world, you wouldn't have to go convince someone that you have value. And in a world where you have to do that convincing... those who are better at convincing get more promotions.

Because you are better at convincing does not mean you bring more value, though.

Again it's a hard problem, but what matters to me is that people understand that it is a hard problem and there is no silver bullet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com