3 ms·

This is a really interesting take on the article, but not one that I can agree with. It could just be the culture at the company that I work for, but when my m

This is a really interesting take on the article, but not one that I can agree with. It could just be the culture at the company that I work for, but when my manager tells me that I'm doing great work, I'm a top contributer, etc. but that the penny-pinching accountants won't let me have a raise then I do take that personally. I'm trying to move up but the company doesn't seem to want to let me. This isn't the way to turn me into an "alumni". Instead I'm going to be bitter at the company that gives lip service to career growth but isn't willing to put its money where its mouth is. If a company wants employees to say for ten or more years, like they claim, then they need to be willing to pay up. Otherwise I would prefer the "you will be here for three years, then move on" talk on my starting day.

mechanical_fish 18y ago
Mind you, I'm not saying that this half-assed, semi-conscious method of "up-or-out" is actually any good. At least half of the advantage of such a policy comes from admitting it up front, so that your employees can adjust their working styles, their culture, and their attitude. When a company's words are all about retention but its actions are all about up-or-out, it's more than a little insane. But that's corporate culture for you. I'm trying to move up but the company doesn't seem to want to let me. Well, here we have a situation that doesn't fit the up-or-out model perfectly: Companies where, for a certain class of top performers, there is no "up", only "out". These companies are not interested in grooming their IT staff for management, or bigger roles, or anything else. Their behavior suggests that they're really just hiring a stream of IT consultants on two-to-three-year terms... but they use full-time employees instead, possibly because they're cheaper, possibly because of employment law, and possibly because there are limits to how much power you can exert over a consultant. It sounds like you might need to listen to your company's actions, rather than just their words. Words are very inexpensive. :)

mechanical_fish 18y ago

Mind you, I'm not saying that this half-assed, semi-conscious method of "up-or-out" is actually any good. At least half of the advantage of such a policy comes from admitting it up front, so that your employees can adjust their working styles, their culture, and their attitude. When a company's words are all about retention but its actions are all about up-or-out, it's more than a little insane. But that's corporate culture for you. I'm trying to move up but the company doesn't seem to want to let me. Well, here we have a situation that doesn't fit the up-or-out model perfectly: Companies where, for a certain class of top performers, there is no "up", only "out". These companies are not interested in grooming their IT staff for management, or bigger roles, or anything else. Their behavior suggests that they're really just hiring a stream of IT consultants on two-to-three-year terms... but they use full-time employees instead, possibly because they're cheaper, possibly because of employment law, and possibly because there are limits to how much power you can exert over a consultant. It sounds like you might need to listen to your company's actions, rather than just their words. Words are very inexpensive. :)