2 ms·

I think that what you are missing is that "what must I do to make L10" and "what is valuable to the company" are typically somewhat orthogonal. A prototypical e

by WJW 2y ago

I think that what you are missing is that "what must I do to make L10" and "what is valuable to the company" are typically somewhat orthogonal. A prototypical example is that almost every career ladder out there mentions things like "impact" and architect/systems design work rather than often more valuable maintenance work that keeps current systems running. In addition, measuring the contribution of any individual to a team effort is always difficult, in some cases pretty much impossible until years later. This means that it is always possible to game such career frameworks by focusing only on the things the framework rewards and skipping everything else. In short, encouraging people to get to the next career level in a well-defined framework is exactly the type of "situation where people are rewarded for being bolshy and savvy rather than being valuable to the company" that you mention as being undesirable.

hiatus 2y ago
If following the framework does not provide value to the company, the framework is obviously flawed.
- throwaway98797 2y ago
  the frameworks are always flawed the best leaders know this
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    Sure, but does that mean the framework shouldn't exist? Something can be flawed and still provide some value. In the case of leveling, I'd suggest the levels are guidelines and not policy. As soon as they become policy, management cannot work around them adequately, and they begin to detract value. For example, at my employer, we have levels (within job families, I haven't seen a level grid that has engineers and personal assistants). But, I've never had to tick every single box to get an employee promoted. I have to make my case, and I do use the levels as a guideline, but I've never felt it necessary to absolutely follow every item.
- ketzo 2y ago
  Well, that's sort of the author's point -- every framework is focused on something other than simple salary numbers, which definitionally means it is focused on something other than the dollar value provided to the company. We recognize that they can still be a useful tool, because 1) assigning dollar values to employees is an inexact science that's hard to standardize over an organization and 2) ICs like at least some direction about what they need to do to be eligible for more money aside from just "provide more value"

by WJW 2y ago

hiatus 2y ago

If following the framework does not provide value to the company, the framework is obviously flawed.

throwaway98797 2y ago
the frameworks are always flawed the best leaders know this
- alistairSH 2y ago
  Sure, but does that mean the framework shouldn't exist? Something can be flawed and still provide some value. In the case of leveling, I'd suggest the levels are guidelines and not policy. As soon as they become policy, management cannot work around them adequately, and they begin to detract value. For example, at my employer, we have levels (within job families, I haven't seen a level grid that has engineers and personal assistants). But, I've never had to tick every single box to get an employee promoted. I have to make my case, and I do use the levels as a guideline, but I've never felt it necessary to absolutely follow every item.
ketzo 2y ago
Well, that's sort of the author's point -- every framework is focused on something other than simple salary numbers, which definitionally means it is focused on something other than the dollar value provided to the company. We recognize that they can still be a useful tool, because 1) assigning dollar values to employees is an inexact science that's hard to standardize over an organization and 2) ICs like at least some direction about what they need to do to be eligible for more money aside from just "provide more value"