3 ms·

Simply untrue. FAANG would be _very_ happy to not have to promote.

voiceblue 3y ago
FAANG is not a person. Your director is. And your director wants to empire build, which means the average count and level of the org under them must rise, partially via promotions. I’m not sure why you came up with this statement, I’d love an explanation. Certainly people are apathetic about many things at FAANG, but they are rarely apathetic about their own career. No one is particularly happy about “coasters” (people who may or may not be coasting but aren’t playing “the game”) who are quite frankly singled out for victimization and almost everyone would rather that they quit.
- umutisik 3y ago
  Not my experience at Amazon. If an employee is performing but not growing, then their manager has some explaining to do as it is usually the case that the employee wants to grow but manager is not developing them the way they should be. I have seen plenty of cases where an employee just does not want to get promoted, the manager explains, and it’s fine.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  - Your priors were correct but are newly out of date (no headcount growth since late 2021, completely new regime) - "No one is particularly happy about “coasters”" - your word, your assertion - quite frankly singled out for victimization and almost everyone would rather that they quit: I could see it, heard horror stories about Amazon, Google had great work/life balance. It absolutely was not expected you were busting ass for promo. Infamously you'd usually get a better grade by doing less. It was a "don't like tryhards" culture.
AdieuToLogic 3y ago
The post I replied to read, in part: > ... people are simply not allowed to not care about success or they'll get washed out because of low promotion velocity. And you state: > Simply untrue. FAANG would be _very_ happy to not have to promote. So how is what I wrote; "Simply untrue"? Or did you mean to reply to the GP and not me?
charles_f 3y ago
I was a manager in one of them. Under a certain level (which levels were called "terminal" because you could end your life there), too many "months at level" was officially deemed suspicious per the annual reviews guidelines, and subject to scrutiny and potential PIP. Completely true. Not for all of them, but at least one.

FAANG is not a person. Your director is. And your director wants to empire build, which means the average count and level of the org under them must rise, partially via promotions. I’m not sure why you came up with this statement, I’d love an explanation. Certainly people are apathetic about many things at FAANG, but they are rarely apathetic about their own career. No one is particularly happy about “coasters” (people who may or may not be coasting but aren’t playing “the game”) who are quite frankly singled out for victimization and almost everyone would rather that they quit.

umutisik 3y ago
Not my experience at Amazon. If an employee is performing but not growing, then their manager has some explaining to do as it is usually the case that the employee wants to grow but manager is not developing them the way they should be. I have seen plenty of cases where an employee just does not want to get promoted, the manager explains, and it’s fine.
refulgentis 3y ago
- Your priors were correct but are newly out of date (no headcount growth since late 2021, completely new regime) - "No one is particularly happy about “coasters”" - your word, your assertion - quite frankly singled out for victimization and almost everyone would rather that they quit: I could see it, heard horror stories about Amazon, Google had great work/life balance. It absolutely was not expected you were busting ass for promo. Infamously you'd usually get a better grade by doing less. It was a "don't like tryhards" culture.

AdieuToLogic 3y ago

The post I replied to read, in part: > ... people are simply not allowed to not care about success or they'll get washed out because of low promotion velocity. And you state: > Simply untrue. FAANG would be _very_ happy to not have to promote. So how is what I wrote; "Simply untrue"? Or did you mean to reply to the GP and not me?

charles_f 3y ago

I was a manager in one of them. Under a certain level (which levels were called "terminal" because you could end your life there), too many "months at level" was officially deemed suspicious per the annual reviews guidelines, and subject to scrutiny and potential PIP. Completely true. Not for all of them, but at least one.