24 ms·

“To move from a manager title to a director role, a person had to have hired managers under them from outside the company. To move up the director ranks, a pers

“To move from a manager title to a director role, a person had to have hired managers under them from outside the company. To move up the director ranks, a person needed to have managed their own team of directors.” That is absolutely crazy town. That’s like multi-level marketing, where your primary value is recruiting folks (that recruit folks).

crimsonpowder 3y ago
It works well while there's good growth and cheap debt. But when the revenue to support this type of headcount inflation isn't there, suddenly the entire promotion treadmill seizes up.
stephc_int13 3y ago
Yes, and this is unfortunately how middle-management works, even in small to mid size companies. I’ve also seen this effect with video games producers.
harles 3y ago
Yes, it’s unfair but I think it’s also necessary. Every big tech company I’m aware of has lagging rather than leading promotions. You need to already be doing the job at the next level and have demonstrated it through your work. For directors, that includes being able to build an org from scratch. Can’t demonstrate it? No promo, no exceptions. The flip side of this is that most companies really don’t need so many directors and senior managers. ICs have had to deal with slim pickings at senior level promos for a long time, and I’m honestly glad to see some parity coming - even though would’ve preferred more promos on the IC track rather than few on the EM. One final thing worth noting is that comp bands are extremely wide at these levels and have significant overlap. I’d be much happier in a world where good work is rewarded with better comp rather than pressure to take on a bigger role.
- randoglando 3y ago
  This is a scam. It's a way to extract more value out of you than what they are paying you for (i.e. paying you for an E5 level, while making you do E6 work).
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
    Isn’t the entire concept of employment meant to scam you out of more value for your labor than what you put in? I don’t see anything special about this specific scam
    - JanSt 3y ago
      The individual value of an IC outside of Meta is most certainly lower than what they get paid there. The company provides so much value that it raises the ICs value inside Meta. It's win-win.
      - SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
        Very true. But we have to also consider the intrinsic value of working for Meta. The employees getting paid that excess compensation also have to live with the fact that they took more money to work for Meta. And other people now view them as a person who took more money to work for Meta. So for some people it’s a win win, I’m sure, especially if you don’t really care about how you’re perceived in the world
        xyzzy123 3y ago
        I think the risk is more feeling trapped. e.g. buying into a housing market you probably couldn't afford if you were taking more risk or bootstrapping. It catches up to you fast, especially if you're in the midlife crisis age band. Getting "paid more than you'd be worth anywhere else" has its price.
        Karrot_Kream 3y ago
        Yeah I'm leaving a Big Tech feeling this pain now and it's exactly this. I stayed careful over the years to stay clearly within my means and have the freedom to walk away but still hold onto previous saved earnings. But I have coworkers who bought huge houses in high COL neighborhoods and nice luxury cars who feel too trapped to leave Big Tech.
- elromulous 3y ago
  > Every big tech company I’m aware of has lagging rather than leading promotions. Devil's advocate: the flip side is the peter principle.
  - mdekkers 3y ago
    > Devil's advocate: the flip side is the peter principle. That’s not the only flip side, simply a possible outcome at poorly run organisations.
    - lolinder 3y ago
      I don't think it requires bad management to accidentally promote someone who wasn't ready for promotion. A lot of promotions, even on the IC track, require qualitatively different skill sets. Someone can be performing well in their current role, and the manager could assume they would do well one level up, but if they've never been given the tasks of that level it's really impossible to know for sure.
      - jofiawjf 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - mdekkers 3y ago
        Understanding who should be promoted to where is a cornerstone of good management. Getting that wrong is literally one of the markers of bad management. There are a variety of mechanisms that can be deployed to ensure the person is right for the position. Throwing up your hands and going “well figuring this out is just too hard” is another marker of bad management, lol
  - em-bee 3y ago
    an alternative would be to promote the best available person when a space opens up. the structure in a company should be relatively stable, as long as the teams and the number of employees are stable. say for 1000 employees you need 100 managers and 10 directors, then if one director leaves you promote the best suitable candidate from among the 100 managers. if none are suitable maybe hire an external, or find a way to train a manager to become suitable. achievements can be rewarded with a bonus or a higher salary but i think the latter is tricky if equal work should be rewarded with equal salary. i believe that's why there are more promotions than needed. they are used as a tool to reward people while making it look like they doing different work from those not promoted.
- yodsanklai 3y ago
  > ICs have had to deal with slim pickings at senior level promos for a long time A lot of people don't have what it takes to reach higher levels as SWE. Technical skills alone can be a blocker. On the other hand, it seems easier for managers to assume new responsibilities. I could definitely see my direct manager assume the role of his manager for instance. Personally, I know I can't be an E7 at that stage of my career. My teammates at that level are fast thinkers, extremely well organized, technically exceptional and so on. In comparison, my skip manager is just a guy with good communication skills, enough technical knowledge to understand what the teams do, and smart enough to understand the rules of the game.
  - moneywoes 3y ago
    What about the Peter Principle
- exhaze 3y ago
  During 2010s, many ppl would just job hop to different company to get promoted instead. Further, they would boomerang after 2-3 years and get promoted once more (I’ve seen several EMs join Uber from Google and go back 2 years later with +1/2 level bump) Maybe harder now since hiring market way tighter, but feel like incentives are still messed up overall for senior+ career track across most FANG companies. This policy Meta announced just incentivizes this job hopping as way of getting promo strategy even more.
- treyfitty 3y ago
  Anyone that agrees to doing the work of the level above you before getting promoted is agreeing to be exploited. They want you to do this because they know there’s enough suckers. Don’t be a sucker.
  - gwright 3y ago
    This seems to be a very naive view of the way people and organizations work. It is quite typical for managers to delegate projects/efforts/initiatives to a subordinate for the express purpose of giving them an opportunity to develop and demonstrate the skills they will need in a future position/promotion. If I assigned a stretch opportunity to one of my direct reports and their response was that they needed a promotion before they would do that work, that would be strong evidence that they were not going to be progressing anytime soon.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Rather than assume malicious intent, I think there's a very reasonable explanation for this policy: it avoids the Peter Principle. If someone is content to stay at their current level, that's fine, they can stay there. But if they want a promotion, they need to show that they have the skills that are expected at that level. The company has to decide if they want some people to permanently hold positions beyond their capabilities (Peter Principle), some people to temporarily hold positions below their capabilities (while working towards a promotion), or if they want to regularly demote people who aren't able to do their job. Demotions absolutely kill morale, as does having a bunch of unqualified people in high-level positions. The least bad option is to require people to do the work of the position they want to hold.
    - jofiawjf 3y ago
      But people can come at the next level after a few hours of interviews and never showing any real capability? lol
      - lolinder 3y ago
        That one aspect of a company's systems is terrible doesn't mean they should make other parts terrible too.
- lumb63 3y ago
  My current company has no concept of “levels” within software engineering. Coming from a big company, where criteria for promotions and a whole process and ceremony around them existed, this was a huge shock to me. I’ve now been there about a year and the culture is not at all competitive. Nobody is competing for an (artificially limited) pool of promotions. Nobody is competing for status. We are all trying to do our best work to the furtherance of our company’s objectives. It is a much more relaxing way to work. I don’t have to worry about if I am checking all the boxes to get a promotion. I don’t have to fight with my manager about why I didn’t get one but <other person> did. I don’t have to worry about if I’m on the most high-profile project. I can breathe, and I can focus on my work.
  - jonfw 3y ago
    the nice thing about levels on the flip side is that you can communicate with your peers about your progression without necessarily having to give your salary. When I talk to somebody a level above, they're very open about when and how they got that promotion. I don't expect that they would communicate as openly with me about their salary, unless we had a particularly close relationship.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      I mentioned in a previous post that I worked in the consulting department at BigTech. When I need some advice or a sanity check about something I am implementing, I reach out to the team responsible for the service (ie S3, Lambda, etc) if I’m doing something novel or if I find a reproducible bug. I could care less about titles. Especially knowing that the levels have nothing to do with technical capabilities passed an L4 to L5.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    > It is a much more relaxing way to work. I don’t have to worry about if I am checking all the boxes to get a promotion I work at BigTech and I am just as relaxed. But I took another route. I fell into a BigTech role (cloud consulting department) late into my career (46) without really even trying. I had no previous consulting experience and had only opened the AWS console two years prior for the first time when I also fell into a role as the de facto “cloud architect” responsible for leading “application modernization” at a startup. I had made a good life for myself and had the big house in the burbs in the good school system as a journeyman enterprise C# developer. I got the job, started down the road of working toward getting a promotion to an L6 from an L5 (mid level) and then a year in realized that I didn’t care about a promotion, I didn’t want the headache of worrying about “increasing scope and impact” and hated the entire politics and self promotion of trying to get there. I could see that my expenses not only weren’t going up, they would go down in the next couple of years. I work remotely. I told my manager my goal was to “improve at my current level”. By the end of my four year initial offer, I will probably be looking to go back to small to midsize companies and most likely will take a cut in compensation to do it.
- lumost 3y ago
  Most people grow skills over time. They are either going to be promoted and demonstrate their higher level skill - or work fewer hours. It’s hard to maintain a steady state organization, meta will need to find other incentives for individuals.
sieabahlpark 3y ago
[dead]
dgb23 3y ago
I see why they or others do this. But it’s a prime example of Goodhart‘s law. The incentives misalign with the overarching goals. It reminds me of the (very fun) book Bullshit Jobs by the late David Graeber. He categorized one of the types of jobs as „flunkies“. Their purpose is to make upper management appear more powerful and professional. Hierarchical power structures often have a political minigame that can easily overshadow their organizational and meritocratic purpose.
- harry8 3y ago
  >meritocratic purpose
  - dgb23 3y ago
    English is not my first language, when I wrote this I was suspicious too. What I wanted so say is that, these structures want to promote people upwards based on expertise, effort, popularity etc. So the structure is in part based on meritocracy - in theory. My personal belief is that any hierarchical social structure is arbitrary and exploitable to a degree. We seem to be very good at creating personal and financial incentives without coupling them with the appropriate level of accountability.
    - harry8 3y ago
      Sorry, in no way criticising your english. Was meant to be a cynical comment on the number people one sees simply failing upwards. Success has many parents, failure is an orphan. Merit at playing political games, backstabbing, lying, appearing plausible and convincing, looking like the kind of person expected at that time. Talent, ability, hard work, placing the common goal first? Vastly less important. Aligning self-interest with a common goal is very much an unsolved problem. Being slightly less bad is amazing. One of the most powerful facets of the visionary founder ceo owner despite most being such epic idiots is they aren't professional managers looking to cut themselves into inter-generational levels of wealth from their employer, whether they have MBAs from Harvard like G.W.Bush or not. Structure based on on meritocracy is indeed, as you say, theory. Or justification. Or rationalisation.
gonzo41 3y ago
The plebs should just unionize in retaliation. And if you're having difficulty figuring out who the plebs are, you should probably be in a union.
- Ylpertnodi 3y ago
  Upvoted, but why not unionise because altruism, rather than retaliation?
  - dontlaugh 3y ago
    Why not both? Any reason to seek democratic control over the workplace is a good one.
  - woooooo 3y ago
    That's the wrong way to think about unions. Unions are an idea to counter the power imbalance against the company. It turns it from many->1 to many->many. Now all of a sudden lots of things are negotiable, like different contract terms, which were off the table before. Altruism is about giving things away. If you want to donate to charity, fine, if you're at the union for charity you're misunderstanding things.
    - jltsiren 3y ago
      Altruism makes unions work. From a purely utilitarian perspective, being a freeloader is almost always a better choice. You get most of the benefits of the union without having to pay for it. Altruism is about the concern for the welfare and happiness of others. It's particularly important in organizations that fight, both figuratively and literally. An army that runs out of altruism collapses, because people generally don't want to die for no reason.
      - woooooo 3y ago
        Solidarity is important. Charity isn't. We're all working, it's not charity to be treated right. Look at that dumbass alphabet worker's union for example. They offered nothing to workers for joining, all their goals were social justice culture war stuff. How are they doing? If they called for a strike, would anyone notice?
quijoteuniv 3y ago
I wonder why people wants to work in that company, is it the money? The status? Is this company making a world a better place?
Zetobal 3y ago
That's what happened to IBM and Oracle in the hayday of the suit takeover.
ronenagranat 3y ago
Obviously a director needs to have experience hiring managers. I don’t get the concern. Would you want to work for a director who has never hired someone for your position before?
- oxfordmale 3y ago
  Yes, if they have a proven track record of promoting internal candidates as managers.
  - Gorbzel 3y ago
    Obviously is super valuable, but overreliance on internal promotion can lead to not built here syndrome and rather close minded growth, esp if the co has a strong enough recruiting pipeline + brand to keep people hired fresh out of uni eventually claiming most senior/leadership positions.
andirk 3y ago
No opinion either way, but a quote I have always thought was useful from maybe Steve Jobs "A level people hire level A people, B level people hire C level people" ... and C people tank your company. Point is mining for the best talent out there seems reasonable. Retention, though, is possibly similarly important.
- oblio 3y ago
  > One of the most important things that made Microsoft successful was Bill Gates’ devotion to hiring the best people. If you hire all A people, he said, they’ll also hire A people. But if you hire B people, they’ll hire the C people and then it’s all over. Could we stop attributing everything to Jobs?
oxfordmale 3y ago
Facebook is shooting itself in the foot. There is no point in promoting anyone internally as a manager. It is best if an IC leaves for another FAANG so that you can rehire them as a manager in two years' time. This approach also encourages a heavily bloated hierarchy. If I want to progress, I best promote a cleaning staff member to Director Of Sh*t and have them report to me. In return, they can have several managers reporting to them, who then manage smaller groups of cleaning staff. This approach favours empire builders, who are constantly scheming how to build their empires but are not necessarily adding any value to the company. The staff that are contributing will end up leaving for another FAANG as there are too few opportunities for internal growth.
e40 3y ago
Law of unintended consequences meets arrogance and stupidity.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
Crazy town? Or simply where FB / Meta is now? Wall Street doesn't like surprises. These type of rules create - at least the illusion of? - consistency. Put another way, Meta has jumped the shark. It's startup days and the associated mind set are now long behind them. Expect to see them all wearing Meta blue suits - a la IBM - soon :) Note: This isn't necessarily a bad thing per se. It's ultimately a matter of perspective. Sure, HN won't like it. But HN isn't Meta's market and/or concern, eh.
- exhaze 3y ago
  Suggest you listen to a Meta quarterly analyst call. This is not on their radar. Only possible way this would even appear is via quarterly earnings line item for YoY R&D spend growth that states Meta was able to reduce it by N%. Regarding IBM comparison, no clue where you’re coming from. IBM has historically been sales driven and for past few decades derived most sales from services. FB is product driven and gets most of their sales from their ad products. FYI I don’t work and never worked at Meta, this is just based on info I got online + personal accounts of folks I know who have worked at Meta in the past.
  - mattbrewsbytes 3y ago
    People keep talking about Google and Meta and Tech in general but what everyone is describing is how very large groups of humans organize and operate and all the dysfunctions that come with that. Pick any company over 10k people and you will have all the same issues, doesn't matter if they are walking around in blue suits in cube farms with fluorescent lights or sitting in bean bags next to lava lamps with a hoodie on. People don't want to admit it but Tech companies at that size operate more like IBM than a startup (I'm not comparing products/services just how humans are organized and dysfunction).
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    They have a quarterly call but they're not concerned about perception? I don't doubt you but that's a mouthful that it would help to unpack. Meta isn't a startup anymore. And they have to meet expectations, or suffer the consequences. Right?
appleflaxen 3y ago
It's not crazy in the context that it only exists to tell people "no".
konschubert 3y ago
Next up: Meta overhires on managers.
gardenhedge 3y ago
The problem is the value placed with a director versus an IC. It should be considered another job of the same importance with equal pay and then there wouldn't be this over hiring nonsense. People could actually stay as experts in their field instead of chasing these promotions.
TeMPOraL 3y ago
Thank you! I knew the pseudo-tech advancement ladder we have, with seniors being expected to spend most of their time teaching new hires, so that they can learn on their own and eventually become competent at their job, at which point they stop doing the job, and start teaching the new batch of hires - I knew this looked familiar. Yeah, it's kinda like an MLM scheme too.
sambeau 3y ago
That is a policy where you reward the dilution of talent while simultaneously penalising loyalty. To get promoted, your best strategy is either to quickly employ a load of bozos, or to jump ship and take your talents elsewhere. Going by that policy, I guess they've already started shipping in bozos at director level.
WinstonSmith84 3y ago
Indeed and so basically, a good manager or director will be someone who can self promote himself and his company. Basically, a great marketer... Which seems fine for managers and directors working in Marketing but what about those working in Tech for example? It seems that a brilliant tech manager will have less chance than an average tech manager who is brilliant in marketing ...
gadders 3y ago
No pun intended but I think there is a meta-game when it comes to being successful at a company. The surface level is to see companies as an entity that serves customers and by doing so generates profits and so you work hard to try and help the company achieve this. The deeper level is to see companies as a method of personal enrichment, and you optimise your behaviours for this. Some of this may overlap with the surface level, but things like EG building a bigger team than you need to justify your promotion to the next level obviously do not.
steeve 3y ago
Ah, the good old “army building” incentive to look big

crimsonpowder 3y ago

It works well while there's good growth and cheap debt. But when the revenue to support this type of headcount inflation isn't there, suddenly the entire promotion treadmill seizes up.

stephc_int13 3y ago

Yes, and this is unfortunately how middle-management works, even in small to mid size companies. I’ve also seen this effect with video games producers.

harles 3y ago

Yes, it’s unfair but I think it’s also necessary. Every big tech company I’m aware of has lagging rather than leading promotions. You need to already be doing the job at the next level and have demonstrated it through your work. For directors, that includes being able to build an org from scratch. Can’t demonstrate it? No promo, no exceptions. The flip side of this is that most companies really don’t need so many directors and senior managers. ICs have had to deal with slim pickings at senior level promos for a long time, and I’m honestly glad to see some parity coming - even though would’ve preferred more promos on the IC track rather than few on the EM. One final thing worth noting is that comp bands are extremely wide at these levels and have significant overlap. I’d be much happier in a world where good work is rewarded with better comp rather than pressure to take on a bigger role.

randoglando 3y ago
This is a scam. It's a way to extract more value out of you than what they are paying you for (i.e. paying you for an E5 level, while making you do E6 work).
- SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
  Isn’t the entire concept of employment meant to scam you out of more value for your labor than what you put in? I don’t see anything special about this specific scam
  - JanSt 3y ago
    The individual value of an IC outside of Meta is most certainly lower than what they get paid there. The company provides so much value that it raises the ICs value inside Meta. It's win-win.
    - SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
      Very true. But we have to also consider the intrinsic value of working for Meta. The employees getting paid that excess compensation also have to live with the fact that they took more money to work for Meta. And other people now view them as a person who took more money to work for Meta. So for some people it’s a win win, I’m sure, especially if you don’t really care about how you’re perceived in the world
      - xyzzy123 3y ago
        I think the risk is more feeling trapped. e.g. buying into a housing market you probably couldn't afford if you were taking more risk or bootstrapping. It catches up to you fast, especially if you're in the midlife crisis age band. Getting "paid more than you'd be worth anywhere else" has its price.
        Karrot_Kream 3y ago
        Yeah I'm leaving a Big Tech feeling this pain now and it's exactly this. I stayed careful over the years to stay clearly within my means and have the freedom to walk away but still hold onto previous saved earnings. But I have coworkers who bought huge houses in high COL neighborhoods and nice luxury cars who feel too trapped to leave Big Tech.
elromulous 3y ago
> Every big tech company I’m aware of has lagging rather than leading promotions. Devil's advocate: the flip side is the peter principle.
- mdekkers 3y ago
  > Devil's advocate: the flip side is the peter principle. That’s not the only flip side, simply a possible outcome at poorly run organisations.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    I don't think it requires bad management to accidentally promote someone who wasn't ready for promotion. A lot of promotions, even on the IC track, require qualitatively different skill sets. Someone can be performing well in their current role, and the manager could assume they would do well one level up, but if they've never been given the tasks of that level it's really impossible to know for sure.
    - jofiawjf 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - mdekkers 3y ago
      Understanding who should be promoted to where is a cornerstone of good management. Getting that wrong is literally one of the markers of bad management. There are a variety of mechanisms that can be deployed to ensure the person is right for the position. Throwing up your hands and going “well figuring this out is just too hard” is another marker of bad management, lol
- em-bee 3y ago
  an alternative would be to promote the best available person when a space opens up. the structure in a company should be relatively stable, as long as the teams and the number of employees are stable. say for 1000 employees you need 100 managers and 10 directors, then if one director leaves you promote the best suitable candidate from among the 100 managers. if none are suitable maybe hire an external, or find a way to train a manager to become suitable. achievements can be rewarded with a bonus or a higher salary but i think the latter is tricky if equal work should be rewarded with equal salary. i believe that's why there are more promotions than needed. they are used as a tool to reward people while making it look like they doing different work from those not promoted.
yodsanklai 3y ago
> ICs have had to deal with slim pickings at senior level promos for a long time A lot of people don't have what it takes to reach higher levels as SWE. Technical skills alone can be a blocker. On the other hand, it seems easier for managers to assume new responsibilities. I could definitely see my direct manager assume the role of his manager for instance. Personally, I know I can't be an E7 at that stage of my career. My teammates at that level are fast thinkers, extremely well organized, technically exceptional and so on. In comparison, my skip manager is just a guy with good communication skills, enough technical knowledge to understand what the teams do, and smart enough to understand the rules of the game.
- moneywoes 3y ago
  What about the Peter Principle
exhaze 3y ago
During 2010s, many ppl would just job hop to different company to get promoted instead. Further, they would boomerang after 2-3 years and get promoted once more (I’ve seen several EMs join Uber from Google and go back 2 years later with +1/2 level bump) Maybe harder now since hiring market way tighter, but feel like incentives are still messed up overall for senior+ career track across most FANG companies. This policy Meta announced just incentivizes this job hopping as way of getting promo strategy even more.
treyfitty 3y ago
Anyone that agrees to doing the work of the level above you before getting promoted is agreeing to be exploited. They want you to do this because they know there’s enough suckers. Don’t be a sucker.
- gwright 3y ago
  This seems to be a very naive view of the way people and organizations work. It is quite typical for managers to delegate projects/efforts/initiatives to a subordinate for the express purpose of giving them an opportunity to develop and demonstrate the skills they will need in a future position/promotion. If I assigned a stretch opportunity to one of my direct reports and their response was that they needed a promotion before they would do that work, that would be strong evidence that they were not going to be progressing anytime soon.
- lolinder 3y ago
  Rather than assume malicious intent, I think there's a very reasonable explanation for this policy: it avoids the Peter Principle. If someone is content to stay at their current level, that's fine, they can stay there. But if they want a promotion, they need to show that they have the skills that are expected at that level. The company has to decide if they want some people to permanently hold positions beyond their capabilities (Peter Principle), some people to temporarily hold positions below their capabilities (while working towards a promotion), or if they want to regularly demote people who aren't able to do their job. Demotions absolutely kill morale, as does having a bunch of unqualified people in high-level positions. The least bad option is to require people to do the work of the position they want to hold.
  - jofiawjf 3y ago
    But people can come at the next level after a few hours of interviews and never showing any real capability? lol
    - lolinder 3y ago
      That one aspect of a company's systems is terrible doesn't mean they should make other parts terrible too.
lumb63 3y ago
My current company has no concept of “levels” within software engineering. Coming from a big company, where criteria for promotions and a whole process and ceremony around them existed, this was a huge shock to me. I’ve now been there about a year and the culture is not at all competitive. Nobody is competing for an (artificially limited) pool of promotions. Nobody is competing for status. We are all trying to do our best work to the furtherance of our company’s objectives. It is a much more relaxing way to work. I don’t have to worry about if I am checking all the boxes to get a promotion. I don’t have to fight with my manager about why I didn’t get one but <other person> did. I don’t have to worry about if I’m on the most high-profile project. I can breathe, and I can focus on my work.
- jonfw 3y ago
  the nice thing about levels on the flip side is that you can communicate with your peers about your progression without necessarily having to give your salary. When I talk to somebody a level above, they're very open about when and how they got that promotion. I don't expect that they would communicate as openly with me about their salary, unless we had a particularly close relationship.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    I mentioned in a previous post that I worked in the consulting department at BigTech. When I need some advice or a sanity check about something I am implementing, I reach out to the team responsible for the service (ie S3, Lambda, etc) if I’m doing something novel or if I find a reproducible bug. I could care less about titles. Especially knowing that the levels have nothing to do with technical capabilities passed an L4 to L5.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  > It is a much more relaxing way to work. I don’t have to worry about if I am checking all the boxes to get a promotion I work at BigTech and I am just as relaxed. But I took another route. I fell into a BigTech role (cloud consulting department) late into my career (46) without really even trying. I had no previous consulting experience and had only opened the AWS console two years prior for the first time when I also fell into a role as the de facto “cloud architect” responsible for leading “application modernization” at a startup. I had made a good life for myself and had the big house in the burbs in the good school system as a journeyman enterprise C# developer. I got the job, started down the road of working toward getting a promotion to an L6 from an L5 (mid level) and then a year in realized that I didn’t care about a promotion, I didn’t want the headache of worrying about “increasing scope and impact” and hated the entire politics and self promotion of trying to get there. I could see that my expenses not only weren’t going up, they would go down in the next couple of years. I work remotely. I told my manager my goal was to “improve at my current level”. By the end of my four year initial offer, I will probably be looking to go back to small to midsize companies and most likely will take a cut in compensation to do it.
lumost 3y ago
Most people grow skills over time. They are either going to be promoted and demonstrate their higher level skill - or work fewer hours. It’s hard to maintain a steady state organization, meta will need to find other incentives for individuals.

sieabahlpark 3y ago

[dead]

dgb23 3y ago

I see why they or others do this. But it’s a prime example of Goodhart‘s law. The incentives misalign with the overarching goals. It reminds me of the (very fun) book Bullshit Jobs by the late David Graeber. He categorized one of the types of jobs as „flunkies“. Their purpose is to make upper management appear more powerful and professional. Hierarchical power structures often have a political minigame that can easily overshadow their organizational and meritocratic purpose.

harry8 3y ago
>meritocratic purpose
- dgb23 3y ago
  English is not my first language, when I wrote this I was suspicious too. What I wanted so say is that, these structures want to promote people upwards based on expertise, effort, popularity etc. So the structure is in part based on meritocracy - in theory. My personal belief is that any hierarchical social structure is arbitrary and exploitable to a degree. We seem to be very good at creating personal and financial incentives without coupling them with the appropriate level of accountability.
  - harry8 3y ago
    Sorry, in no way criticising your english. Was meant to be a cynical comment on the number people one sees simply failing upwards. Success has many parents, failure is an orphan. Merit at playing political games, backstabbing, lying, appearing plausible and convincing, looking like the kind of person expected at that time. Talent, ability, hard work, placing the common goal first? Vastly less important. Aligning self-interest with a common goal is very much an unsolved problem. Being slightly less bad is amazing. One of the most powerful facets of the visionary founder ceo owner despite most being such epic idiots is they aren't professional managers looking to cut themselves into inter-generational levels of wealth from their employer, whether they have MBAs from Harvard like G.W.Bush or not. Structure based on on meritocracy is indeed, as you say, theory. Or justification. Or rationalisation.

gonzo41 3y ago

The plebs should just unionize in retaliation. And if you're having difficulty figuring out who the plebs are, you should probably be in a union.

Ylpertnodi 3y ago
Upvoted, but why not unionise because altruism, rather than retaliation?
- dontlaugh 3y ago
  Why not both? Any reason to seek democratic control over the workplace is a good one.
- woooooo 3y ago
  That's the wrong way to think about unions. Unions are an idea to counter the power imbalance against the company. It turns it from many->1 to many->many. Now all of a sudden lots of things are negotiable, like different contract terms, which were off the table before. Altruism is about giving things away. If you want to donate to charity, fine, if you're at the union for charity you're misunderstanding things.
  - jltsiren 3y ago
    Altruism makes unions work. From a purely utilitarian perspective, being a freeloader is almost always a better choice. You get most of the benefits of the union without having to pay for it. Altruism is about the concern for the welfare and happiness of others. It's particularly important in organizations that fight, both figuratively and literally. An army that runs out of altruism collapses, because people generally don't want to die for no reason.
    - woooooo 3y ago
      Solidarity is important. Charity isn't. We're all working, it's not charity to be treated right. Look at that dumbass alphabet worker's union for example. They offered nothing to workers for joining, all their goals were social justice culture war stuff. How are they doing? If they called for a strike, would anyone notice?

quijoteuniv 3y ago

I wonder why people wants to work in that company, is it the money? The status? Is this company making a world a better place?

Zetobal 3y ago

That's what happened to IBM and Oracle in the hayday of the suit takeover.

ronenagranat 3y ago

Obviously a director needs to have experience hiring managers. I don’t get the concern. Would you want to work for a director who has never hired someone for your position before?

oxfordmale 3y ago
Yes, if they have a proven track record of promoting internal candidates as managers.
- Gorbzel 3y ago
  Obviously is super valuable, but overreliance on internal promotion can lead to not built here syndrome and rather close minded growth, esp if the co has a strong enough recruiting pipeline + brand to keep people hired fresh out of uni eventually claiming most senior/leadership positions.

andirk 3y ago

No opinion either way, but a quote I have always thought was useful from maybe Steve Jobs "A level people hire level A people, B level people hire C level people" ... and C people tank your company. Point is mining for the best talent out there seems reasonable. Retention, though, is possibly similarly important.

oblio 3y ago
> One of the most important things that made Microsoft successful was Bill Gates’ devotion to hiring the best people. If you hire all A people, he said, they’ll also hire A people. But if you hire B people, they’ll hire the C people and then it’s all over. Could we stop attributing everything to Jobs?

oxfordmale 3y ago

Facebook is shooting itself in the foot. There is no point in promoting anyone internally as a manager. It is best if an IC leaves for another FAANG so that you can rehire them as a manager in two years' time. This approach also encourages a heavily bloated hierarchy. If I want to progress, I best promote a cleaning staff member to Director Of Sh*t and have them report to me. In return, they can have several managers reporting to them, who then manage smaller groups of cleaning staff. This approach favours empire builders, who are constantly scheming how to build their empires but are not necessarily adding any value to the company. The staff that are contributing will end up leaving for another FAANG as there are too few opportunities for internal growth.

e40 3y ago

Law of unintended consequences meets arrogance and stupidity.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

Crazy town? Or simply where FB / Meta is now? Wall Street doesn't like surprises. These type of rules create - at least the illusion of? - consistency. Put another way, Meta has jumped the shark. It's startup days and the associated mind set are now long behind them. Expect to see them all wearing Meta blue suits - a la IBM - soon :) Note: This isn't necessarily a bad thing per se. It's ultimately a matter of perspective. Sure, HN won't like it. But HN isn't Meta's market and/or concern, eh.

exhaze 3y ago
Suggest you listen to a Meta quarterly analyst call. This is not on their radar. Only possible way this would even appear is via quarterly earnings line item for YoY R&D spend growth that states Meta was able to reduce it by N%. Regarding IBM comparison, no clue where you’re coming from. IBM has historically been sales driven and for past few decades derived most sales from services. FB is product driven and gets most of their sales from their ad products. FYI I don’t work and never worked at Meta, this is just based on info I got online + personal accounts of folks I know who have worked at Meta in the past.
- mattbrewsbytes 3y ago
  People keep talking about Google and Meta and Tech in general but what everyone is describing is how very large groups of humans organize and operate and all the dysfunctions that come with that. Pick any company over 10k people and you will have all the same issues, doesn't matter if they are walking around in blue suits in cube farms with fluorescent lights or sitting in bean bags next to lava lamps with a hoodie on. People don't want to admit it but Tech companies at that size operate more like IBM than a startup (I'm not comparing products/services just how humans are organized and dysfunction).
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  They have a quarterly call but they're not concerned about perception? I don't doubt you but that's a mouthful that it would help to unpack. Meta isn't a startup anymore. And they have to meet expectations, or suffer the consequences. Right?

appleflaxen 3y ago

It's not crazy in the context that it only exists to tell people "no".

konschubert 3y ago

Next up: Meta overhires on managers.

gardenhedge 3y ago

The problem is the value placed with a director versus an IC. It should be considered another job of the same importance with equal pay and then there wouldn't be this over hiring nonsense. People could actually stay as experts in their field instead of chasing these promotions.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

Thank you! I knew the pseudo-tech advancement ladder we have, with seniors being expected to spend most of their time teaching new hires, so that they can learn on their own and eventually become competent at their job, at which point they stop doing the job, and start teaching the new batch of hires - I knew this looked familiar. Yeah, it's kinda like an MLM scheme too.

sambeau 3y ago

That is a policy where you reward the dilution of talent while simultaneously penalising loyalty. To get promoted, your best strategy is either to quickly employ a load of bozos, or to jump ship and take your talents elsewhere. Going by that policy, I guess they've already started shipping in bozos at director level.

WinstonSmith84 3y ago

Indeed and so basically, a good manager or director will be someone who can self promote himself and his company. Basically, a great marketer... Which seems fine for managers and directors working in Marketing but what about those working in Tech for example? It seems that a brilliant tech manager will have less chance than an average tech manager who is brilliant in marketing ...

gadders 3y ago

No pun intended but I think there is a meta-game when it comes to being successful at a company. The surface level is to see companies as an entity that serves customers and by doing so generates profits and so you work hard to try and help the company achieve this. The deeper level is to see companies as a method of personal enrichment, and you optimise your behaviours for this. Some of this may overlap with the surface level, but things like EG building a bigger team than you need to justify your promotion to the next level obviously do not.

steeve 3y ago

Ah, the good old “army building” incentive to look big