There is little semblance of meritocracy, especially in larger companies where salaries are not even determined on an individual basis, but more as a function o

There is little semblance of meritocracy, especially in larger companies where salaries are not even determined on an individual basis, but more as a function of years worked and meeting the minimum bar to sustain good yearly ratings. The structure itself is preset, and no matter how effective you are in your role, companies generally recognize that competing for talent has a narrow value range. Companies are hurting for sound product ideas and good business plans more than they are for talented people to implement them. As long as all of their corporate peers are generally in the same boat, turnover is merely a statistic. Talent comes and goes, and you only need to acquire at equal rates to your talent losses. Hiring is just as hit or miss, and article after article here demonstrates that corporate America has given up trying to innovate on that process. If companies could bureaucratically recognize talent internally, then maybe they could hire better candidates. But that’s expensive, and like I said before, the value proposition is limited. If they hire a 10x person, it’s a risky investment anyway, because they’ll leave a 10x hole to fill. It’s just easier to hire 10x people, which has better statistical stability in turnover.