3 ms·

> If yes, good luck burning out while blocking your own career progression. Is there a career blockage if you don't stick around? The more you do, the more you

> If yes, good luck burning out while blocking your own career progression. Is there a career blockage if you don't stick around? The more you do, the more you learn, the more you learn the faster you do, the faster you do, the more you do. > management won’t want to promote them out of the situation Management can pay a higher salary to retain them. A vertical career into management is not for everyone. > they will ruin their health through stress, and then the consequences of returning to 1x workload and being an “under-performer” will follow anyway. Doesn't look like that if you leave a paper trail of everything you do.

clnq 4y ago
> A vertical career into management is not for everyone. That's a different question which is even more polarizing - should good engineers become managers. But to be clear, I brought up promotion because that's why many people make the decision to take on these responsibilities to save the project. It could be a pay raise or a promotion to a higher engineering level. > Doesn't look like that if you leave a paper trail of everything you do. It works this way from what I've seen, I'm sorry to say. But I've seen a lot. The paper trail is good evidence in a grievance situation but it's hard to restore one's reputation through the grievance process - formal or informal. > Is there a career blockage if you don't stick around? No, and leaving, to my mind, is the easiest healthy choice if an engineer finds themselves in this situation. However, it is still an undesirable situation to put oneself in if one wants career growth. If leaving is the way they wish to achieve that, it's better to just leave than to suffer for a while and then leave. If they wish to achieve career growth in the company, this will block them. In any case, it's wasted time from a career advancement perspective. You could say that working in a high-pressure situation would teach the engineer something, and maybe it's true. But mostly it will make the engineer make many mistakes and be overwhelmed. Which is why most people argue that learning in a relaxed environment is much more practical. Even people who study extreme medicine (battlefield medicine, mountain rescues, and similar topics) study it in a safe environment. They do real life simulations but in a supervised way. Throwing an engineer into the fire to teach them handling a pressure-cooker situation would be much like asking an extreme medicine doctor to learn on the battlefield. You could say they would learn, but probably a lot of what they would learn is to make mistakes.

clnq 4y ago

> A vertical career into management is not for everyone. That's a different question which is even more polarizing - should good engineers become managers. But to be clear, I brought up promotion because that's why many people make the decision to take on these responsibilities to save the project. It could be a pay raise or a promotion to a higher engineering level. > Doesn't look like that if you leave a paper trail of everything you do. It works this way from what I've seen, I'm sorry to say. But I've seen a lot. The paper trail is good evidence in a grievance situation but it's hard to restore one's reputation through the grievance process - formal or informal. > Is there a career blockage if you don't stick around? No, and leaving, to my mind, is the easiest healthy choice if an engineer finds themselves in this situation. However, it is still an undesirable situation to put oneself in if one wants career growth. If leaving is the way they wish to achieve that, it's better to just leave than to suffer for a while and then leave. If they wish to achieve career growth in the company, this will block them. In any case, it's wasted time from a career advancement perspective. You could say that working in a high-pressure situation would teach the engineer something, and maybe it's true. But mostly it will make the engineer make many mistakes and be overwhelmed. Which is why most people argue that learning in a relaxed environment is much more practical. Even people who study extreme medicine (battlefield medicine, mountain rescues, and similar topics) study it in a safe environment. They do real life simulations but in a supervised way. Throwing an engineer into the fire to teach them handling a pressure-cooker situation would be much like asking an extreme medicine doctor to learn on the battlefield. You could say they would learn, but probably a lot of what they would learn is to make mistakes.