3 ms·
Granted, the person who wrote in to the Washington Post is well meaning and all and I know her write in was edited down for brevity, but it seems like this lady
by no_wizard 3y ago
Granted, the person who wrote in to the Washington Post is well meaning and all and I know her write in was edited down for brevity, but it seems like this lady is bringing on alot of the problems herself and not seeing that.
Also, is there an underlying problem with retention, re this comment:
>Developing a rapport with “Bob” could help me anticipate when the lack of promotion opportunity is about to make him jump so we can line up potential replacements.
In the vacuum that is reading the article, this reads like there are problems at the organization with people getting promotions and the person writing in is willing to let them leave and replace them than work out how to keep them.
Something about the write in doesn't sit well with me more generally, but I can't put my finger on it.
- sokoloff 3y agoThere are limits to promotion at any company. Probably no limits from fresh-college-grad to the next level of software engineer (SWE-2 or equivalent). That becomes less true at higher levels. If Bob is a Vice President of Tech, reporting to the CTO, Bob may have no realistic prospect to be promoted to any position other than CTO and if the CTO is successful and not leaving, then Bob has a lack of promotion opportunity. If the CTO keeps working out, most companies would be rationally willing to let Bob leave and replace him if that's Bob's choice (and therefore want to know when he's contemplating that seriously).
- shortrounddev2 3y agoYes but the employee has no incentive to return to the office so that they can be more easily replaced. Return to office is one-sided: middle management think they will gain something (they won't), but the employee gains nothing and loses a lot.