Ask HN: How to handle pushback on a team switch? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: How to handle pushback on a team switch?

38 pointsrednafi46 comments

Here's an _imaginary_ but common scenario in the corp tech hemisphere:

VP: Gives the IC a dubious signal about a promo in the next cycle, mentioning tenure, budget constraints, or something incredibly vague.

IC: Lets go of the promo and seeks to switch teams at the same level in search of more interesting work and possibly to avoid a similar situation in the next cycle.

VP: Feels betrayed, claiming they were working hard on the promo case and that it might have happened in the next cycle.

IC: Gets accepted into a different team and wants to transition to the new role as smoothly as possible without burning bridges.

VP: Demands a three-month grace period.

IC: It wouldn't be fair to the new team and would probably result in losing the opportunity.

How should the IC navigate a situation like this?

View on HN

Emphasize the other reasons for the team switch, and don't talk about the promo likelihood difference. Talk about how you've always wanted to try working on that field, and how this opportunity just came up and you've got to try it. Thank the VP for all their work on getting you a path to promo.

For switching, tell the VP you'll ask the new team what's possible. Go to your new VP and tell them that old VP wants this, but make it implicitly clear that you don't want this. Go back to your old VP and tell them that you don't think the long transfer period is going to work with the new team (but you tried!), but that you will still be around to help the team answer any questions.

Once you switch, deprioritize the old team. Deprioritize them slowly enough that you keep a good relationship with old VP, but let it be pretty clear that you're not gonna be doing any coding and only the bare minimum of consulting.

You should only debate promo likelihood while you're still on the team. Once you've decided to leave, drop it from discussion.

Highlighting what the IC wants instead of the promo thingy is a great piece of advice.

Agreed, otherwise it smacks of sour grapes and might come back to bite you on the new team, i.e., "they only joined the new team because they got upset about a promotion".

But that is the fact, isn't it? If the individual contributor could get a promotion in their old team, I assume they would stay there? This is about managing the "optics" but it doesn't change the facts?

When you send a cover letter to apply for a job, you wouldn't say you want to work there because of the salary. Yet we all know.

Not necessarily. It's a desire to move out from their current position. They may prefer a move upwards where they currently are, or sideways, but a move nonetheless.

I think that's different from "You wouldn't give me X so I'm annoyed and don't want to be here any more".

I am sorry. I didn't mean it as a negative. In fact, when I read the post, it felt like the vice president was stringing the individual contributor along dangling a promotion to the individual contributor but never granting it.

Yes, I agree a move could be upward or sideways but basically what I understood from the OP is the VP is either malicious or incompetent.

I would love to learn why a VP would string along ICs like this... why not speak the truth? Do they think we are idiots?

While it’s an employers’ market now, it many regions, getting good people has become equally difficult.

Seen it in first person and that could be one reason why the VP is acting like this.

Sometimes the VP gets surprised with budget or headcount constraints. Or maybe they were expecting the IC to perform a bit better this quarter, but other people involved in the promo process do not feel that the IC has met the bar, and block the promo.

And yeah, it's always possible that the VP is just saying what's necessary to keep the IC on the team and productive, but there's plenty of cases where the VP is trying for your promo, and we cannot tell from OPs comment exactly what's going on here.

The maxim of office happiness: Strong relationships > any problem!

If people mention dubious and vague things about future promotions, raises, etc... I just tell them politely but clearly that I can only make decisions on the basis of information that is presently available and verifiable. If they're serious, they'll be able to substantiate with something written, corroborated by more senior folks, etc.

You'll almost certainly find that its just puffery, but if you give them a chance to substantiate and they don't, then they don't get to feel untrusted/betrayed later.

That's fair. Sadly, It's been my experience at some bigger companies that even the VP doesn't have the final say in securing a promotion. Especially for a more senior level role. What I've seen happen instead is guidance from HR to avoid discussing promotion attempts altogether which also seems terrible for all involved.

There should be (but often isnt) a matrix of job tiers and responsibilities. If such a thing exists, managers can work with ICs to gain the type of experience to move up AND then make a case to senior leadership.

It's entirely possible the VP exerted energy for the IC. It's entirely possible they feel feelings. It's entirely possible IC feels its a burden to deal with the situation, would prefer it not be that serious (because it is, someone believed in you), and would like to move on.

You can have a small one-on-one conversation and air it out. Explain that you are honored to be considered, and perhaps that discussion can lead to a better end here, versus a bitter one.

We cannot constantly run from the fact that we deal with human beings with emotions in this life, as clinical as we want to be.

This. Have a conversation, voice gratitude and appreciation, voice your reasoning for wanting a change and ask they support you in that end. Together, devise a specific wind down plan that’s not time based.

A good VP knows VERY well that people want to move on.

Only shitty VPs clinge on people like this.

Your IC is an expert in developing / doing the things, the VP should be an expert in managing.

every other scenario are bad managers who act like children and do guilte trips to keep people because they don't know better.

An amazing VP hears about something on another team and chucks it your way.

For the really really slick operator this is a way to extend their powerbase throughout the org.

I have no clue how a VP could 'chuck' it from one team to another.

Normally teams have ownership on specific topics.

But yes of course, if this is possible and 'chcusk it your way' is the same thing as 'delegating efficient' i do agree.

I have seen quite a few times, VPs, EMs or lead/senior engineers being angry and resentful towards people switching companies and/or teams. A f2f meeting _could_ help, but not always.

Promises mean nothing. A couple of months ago, I was promised a promotion during the next review cycle. This week, HR announced at an all-hands that there won't be a review cycle or raises at all this year. The anger and disappointment I feel right now are off the charts.

Do what's best for you. If you're trying to keep things smooth, cut the grace period to a month max with a clear ramp-down plan. If you had quit, they wouldn’t have gotten even that.

The VP sounds like they are trying to guilt and manipulate you into doing what they want. Just move teams is my advice, and as soon as possible. There should probably be precedent for the amount of notice moving team happens in the past, find some examples (cherry picked if need be) and just say 4 weeks is standard at the org and I’ll hand over in that time. You can say you’re always available to support previous team members as required.

In conclusion be nice but don’t take any shit, this VP doesn’t have your best interests at heart otherwise they’d wish you well.

This conversation should never have to happen -- If you sincerely want to move within an organization, you should already have documented your current role sufficiently for someone new to take it over, and ideally mentored a replacement for yourself. Then you are prepared for any move available to you.

As a general rule, once you get beyond the initial junior -> mid -> senior level early career hops.... promotions are not given because you did your job well. They are given when you lift up your peers or direct reports to be able to to do your job well.

I agree in general. However, let's say an internal transfer isn't guaranteed and interviews are involved. In that scenario, when the IC gets the green signal from the other team, how does training another person come into play? I understand the documentation and handover part, which can be done in a few weeks. But finding a replacement and training them take longer.

It's not the IC who needs to find their replacement for a team. That's the responsibility of a team lead or VP. In my experience, those who think it is the ICs responsibility, they lack proper boundaries and contribute to an unhealthy work environment.

> If you sincerely want to move within an organization, you should ... ideally mentored a replacement for yourself

This just isn't feasible in a lot of orgs. There often isn't the budget allocated to hire a suitably-levelled replacement until the senior-most IC announces they are leaving.

Should you be making sure your junior engineers are equipped to handle the day-to-day? Yes.

Should you be putting them in the line-of-fire with the VPs? Probably not.

The VP is looking out in their best interests, the IC should do the same and move to the new team on the original schedule. Any promise not in writing will disappear most of the time, even then it can be walked back.

In my experience if you think its time to move, commit to it 100% or not at all.

Offers to stay tend to be full of bullshit.

I have fielded 3 offers to stay instead of moving on, and the only one I regretted was the offer I accepted.

2 of these times, I was basically being offered a "Promotion" but in in both cases it was seat warming duty while the owner ran for the exit.

In 1 of these cases I ended up as a consultant at the acquiring firm, for nearly twice the money, having to coax the seat warmers who took the position I was offered through the process of integrating the acquisition.

Those arent internal moves but the last example isnt far off.

Also: I found that if you are concerned about damaging the relationship, the relationship isnt that strong / worth holding on to.

I don't see what VP would get by forcing an IC to remain in a team that the IC doesn't want to be part of anymore.

If VP's signals about promotion were not backed by some form of agreement, I can't blame the IC for looking for another place under the sun.

I have issues when companies don't support vertical/horizontal movement among the teams. It is in human nature to develop different interests.

I would lean the the skip level managers on both sides of the move. Leaders should be looking out for the overall wellbeing of the IC and the company, not just their individual team. Hopefully, the skip levels are more mature about the whole process.

if the IC is actually discussing their promo case with a VP, as the OP suggests, then there aren't a whole lot of skip-levels in this scenario...

Your scenario does not have enough information for valid advice. This is a negotiation, and you haven't mentioned what your leverage is, if any. If you have none, you're at their mercy, and negotiation is impossible - you will have to do as they say. If you have some (such as being valuable to the company and a possible flight risk), then you can just put your cards on the table. A manager worth their salt will try to retain a hard-to-replace employee. This only works, however, if you're prepared to walk away, so I'd get another offer in advance.

Usually the only way to sort this out is to change companies, and always be clear about not wanting promos that end up in management roles.

I think in this story they do want the promo, and have decided they are being strung along.

Yeah, OP here. In this case, the IC wants the promo as it’s not a management role (although the post doesn’t explicitly say that I admit).

> […] not wanting promos that end up in management roles

I have always wanted to stay an IC, do the job well, and forget about work when I’m done. This advice go well with that.

What does IC mean, besides Integrated Circuit?

Individual Contributor.

It can also mean independent contractor, which made it very confusing.

I believe in this context they’re referring to an Individual Contributor. Pulling the definition from indeed.com: > a professional without management duties and responsibilities who contributes to a company independently to support its mission and goals. While they typically report to someone within the company, individual contributors aren't responsible for managing anyone except for themselves.

Interview for another company. When you interview you get to control the narrative and don’t have to worry about the promo doc. You’ll probably end up making less after your promotion than someone coming in at the same level.

What’s the old adage? People leave managers, not jobs. VP never should have over promised on promotion or raise.

Probably can’t say that to the old boss/VP even if it’s true. So tell a little white lie and sooth the VP’s fragile ego.

Wh not transition out?, sure fire way to promo on switch (i mean to the next corp)

Quit is always an option. Otherwise why not a face to face meeting with VP.

It's insane that instead of actually contributing to value/growth driver, our IC's - the highly paid, sought after experts actually creating the value - have to deal with this kind of political bullshit.

It’s part of the journey. Every place I’ve worked with more than a handful of people had its own version of politics. It’s just human nature.

Ironically, the places that claimed to be free of internal politics often had the most.

* Don’t confuse signals for reality. If a promotion is not explicit it does not exist.

* Only wear the title they provide you, don’t make your own.

* Accomplish what is asked of you. Again, don’t confuse signals for reality. How badly they want something accomplished, and in what way they want it accomplished, is directly proportional to the explicitness of the ask.

* If you work for a sociopath throw all these rules out the window and either go work somewhere else or be their carpet for them to wipe their feet on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com