42 ms·
I also got the feeling there was some role justification going on here, with the level of detail employed (and what seems at first glance to be relatively arbit
by trilinearnz 5y ago
I also got the feeling there was some role justification going on here, with the level of detail employed (and what seems at first glance to be relatively arbitrary levels of skill differentiation). It reminded me a little of the SFIA Framework in that regard.
- astrange 5y agoThis is a pretty normal framework they must've inherited from somewhere else. It's almost exactly the same as at least two other companies.
- dannyw 5y agoNormal doesn't mean sensible though. Having worked at a company that does this, there are high performing IC2s that I'd trade for IC4s (to use comparable "levels" here); so I'm not sure what this does other than declarative justification (across tech).
- kockic 5y agoThis is kind of the main problem. You should't have employees at IC2 if they are IC4 worthy. They will just try to find another job, instead of waiting 5 years before reaching a level of someone who is performing same or worse.
- astrange 5y agoWell, it's just a pay band. The explanations are post-hoc, because you can't get promoted by following them or anything. You are supposed to live up to them at performance review time, and how that works is different at different companies.