Hacker News Reader

Comment by tictacttoe | Hacker News Reader

First, the author is right. This is the way the world works, and if you want to get ahead, play the game. But I have strong contempt for management throwing up their hands and saying “it’s your promotion, own it”.

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.

View on HN

> it’s almost tempting me to apply elsewhere

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.

This could work if there is an accessible alternative that's better which there may not be.

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.

Yes, if there's only one employer in the entire country then you're stuck. If the context is a communist country I'm happy to modify the advice. Except even then it's still "leave the employer and go somewhere else".

Not just more than one employer, but some healthy number of available options.

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.

Of course - and employers have the same issue with employees. We don't have perfect information, but having conversations with alternate employers' employees helps. Just try and find stuff out. It's not going to be perfect, but it's also hard to imagine a better system that can work in practice.

Former manager at big tech here and this is my experience, not sure it really translates to other companies.

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).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com