31 ms·

Same thing happened to me. It was like my company was guiding me out the door, passive-aggressively.

jollybean 5y ago
Or the signals you're getting is that you're good at what you are doing, and not as well suited to other jobs as other candidates, at least in that context. I don't think 'passive-aggressive' is the appropriate term, because there's not likely any conscious action by the company in these circumstances. You've applied, someone else was selected and that's it. There's a tiny bit lack of self awareness on this thread with people with 'qualifications' assuming that there's some kind of implicit right to move up higher in the company. When they chose 'someone else' it's usually for a reason. It's a pyramid, and just above manager it's really narrow there are just very few of those jobs, it's very circumstantial as well. Looking outside might get you a sense of 'market value' and of course, there may simply be more opportunities elsewhere, but ultimately, the same structural limitations remain overall. And finally, I would say that after various positions both contributor, managerial and also staff (i.e. reporting to VP's but without a team) - I'm not sure if most people recognize what the trade-offs are, the pay is nice but usually comes at a cost. If you're doing something you remotely like, if you have a half-decent manager, and you're getting paid somewhere near a reasonable rate - you're already winning. Anything else is gravy.
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  This is an armchair psychoanalysis, and it is quite pretentious. > assuming that there's some kind of implicit right to move up higher in the company. This is so far from the truth in my situation, but yet you feel self-righteous in your judgement that it is laughable. I know your type. The company I worked for deliberately used the "reorg + redeploy = attrition" strategy to avoid lawsuits because they had been repeatedly sued for their focal procedure over several decades, and this was a known method for avoiding getting rid of people who didn't want to work 80 hours a week. And thanks for mansplaining how management works. A "pyramid?" Wow, insightful, that never occurred to me after 30+ years. "Market value?" You don't say! I'm overwhelmed by your astute, 101-level observations of business practices. I guess you got that from the VP's you reported to, weirdflex but OK.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    Well now you've quite clearly demonstrated why you were turned down for the role. As a someone who has done a lot of hiring: 'I know the type'.
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      You wrote a lot of stuff in response to one sentence, and seem to assume that if it triggered someone it must all be true. Has it occurred to you that stereotypes tend to annoy people whether they are false or true? Also, if you, off the cuff, evaluate someone you don't know at all as unsuitable for something, quite possibly they have information that tends to rule out your hypothesis, like that they were able to do in a different environment what wasn't possible in a previous one.
  - tomp 5y ago
    > mansplaining No need to be sexist.

Or the signals you're getting is that you're good at what you are doing, and not as well suited to other jobs as other candidates, at least in that context. I don't think 'passive-aggressive' is the appropriate term, because there's not likely any conscious action by the company in these circumstances. You've applied, someone else was selected and that's it. There's a tiny bit lack of self awareness on this thread with people with 'qualifications' assuming that there's some kind of implicit right to move up higher in the company. When they chose 'someone else' it's usually for a reason. It's a pyramid, and just above manager it's really narrow there are just very few of those jobs, it's very circumstantial as well. Looking outside might get you a sense of 'market value' and of course, there may simply be more opportunities elsewhere, but ultimately, the same structural limitations remain overall. And finally, I would say that after various positions both contributor, managerial and also staff (i.e. reporting to VP's but without a team) - I'm not sure if most people recognize what the trade-offs are, the pay is nice but usually comes at a cost. If you're doing something you remotely like, if you have a half-decent manager, and you're getting paid somewhere near a reasonable rate - you're already winning. Anything else is gravy.

SavantIdiot 5y ago
This is an armchair psychoanalysis, and it is quite pretentious. > assuming that there's some kind of implicit right to move up higher in the company. This is so far from the truth in my situation, but yet you feel self-righteous in your judgement that it is laughable. I know your type. The company I worked for deliberately used the "reorg + redeploy = attrition" strategy to avoid lawsuits because they had been repeatedly sued for their focal procedure over several decades, and this was a known method for avoiding getting rid of people who didn't want to work 80 hours a week. And thanks for mansplaining how management works. A "pyramid?" Wow, insightful, that never occurred to me after 30+ years. "Market value?" You don't say! I'm overwhelmed by your astute, 101-level observations of business practices. I guess you got that from the VP's you reported to, weirdflex but OK.
- jollybean 5y ago
  Well now you've quite clearly demonstrated why you were turned down for the role. As a someone who has done a lot of hiring: 'I know the type'.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    You wrote a lot of stuff in response to one sentence, and seem to assume that if it triggered someone it must all be true. Has it occurred to you that stereotypes tend to annoy people whether they are false or true? Also, if you, off the cuff, evaluate someone you don't know at all as unsuitable for something, quite possibly they have information that tends to rule out your hypothesis, like that they were able to do in a different environment what wasn't possible in a previous one.
- tomp 5y ago
  > mansplaining No need to be sexist.