5 ms·

In my view, the meta-advice is to understand the goals and constraints of your boss (and their boss), and work towards those goals (while adhering to the constr

In my view, the meta-advice is to understand the goals and constraints of your boss (and their boss), and work towards those goals (while adhering to the constraints). With that perspective, we can derive some rules of thumb: 1. Promotions are not a reward for past performance. Instead, they are a bet that you will contribute more towards those goals with a promotion than without one. 2. As the OP says, if you are demonstrating performance at your boss's level, that's evidence/proof that a promotion is warranted. Your boss's goals get implemented (by you), freeing them to work on their boss's goals (and maybe get their own promotion). 3. The more time you spend with your boss, the better you will understand their goals, and symmetrically, the better they will understand your strengths. That means leaving a job after a year or two is not always optimal. It also means following a good boss to another company is often a good move. 4. There will be cases where the goals of your boss (and their boss) diverge from your own goals. They often want to cut costs, but you want a salary increase. There are never easy answers to this dilemma, but seeing their perspective is useful so you can find a win-win scenario. E.g., if you come up with a way to save money in other ways, such as automating an external cost, then your increased salary will be worth it. 5. In some cases, of course, there is no way to reconcile your boss's goals with your own. Realizing that is useful so you can find a different company/boss that is more aligned.

raverbashing 10mo ago
1 is correct. You can't expect the person to get better when promoted, rather you move them to the job they are already (almost) doing
- pants2 10mo ago
  Ideally with increased autonomy and decision-making ability that makes them more effective.
gloryjulio 10mo ago
> 1. Promotions are not a reward for past performance. Instead, they are a bet that you will contribute more towards those goals with a promotion than without one. Actually, you operate on the next level for certain amount of the time. You work with your manager to file for your promotion case. That's how the typical big corps work with promotions. So technically, it is using your past experience to prove that you are operating at the next level
- ryandrake 10mo ago
  > Actually, you operate on the next level for certain amount of the time. You work with your manager to file for your promotion case. That's how the typical big corps work with promotions. This has always struck me as a pretty juicy deal going for the corporation. They get N years of "next level" work out of you while still being able to pay those N years in "previous level" salary. Good deal for them. How ridiculous the opposite sounds: You pay me at the next level for 3 years, and only then I'll know you're serious and will start working at that level. You'd get laughed out of the room. But the company has this exact deal in reverse.
  - gloryjulio 10mo ago
    That's true. I am out of the promotion game grind now. Personally, I have reached my ceiling and the time is better spent else where.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
  - akdas 10mo ago
    One thing that I've seen implemented to prevent that is to have the pay bands for level N and N+1 overlap. So in the time that you're doing "next level" work, you're expecting to be at the top of your current pay band, and then the promotion doesn't automatically give you a big pay raise, but it unlocks a pay band that you can go up in. This works if performing at the top of your current level equates to performing at the bottom of the next level. That said, there's a problem where sometimes a "promotion" is really a new role, meaning to perform at the next level, you have to kind of not perform well at the current level.
  - jkubicek 10mo ago
    > > Actually, you operate on the next level for certain amount of the time. You work with your manager to file for your promotion case. That's how the typical big corps work with promotions. > This has always struck me as a pretty juicy deal going for the corporation. They get N years of "next level" work out of you while still being able to pay those N years in "previous level" salary. Good deal for them. My current company used to work this way, but they moved to a "needs-based" promo process. You can be promoted to L5 if your manager can justify the need for an L5. Which ends up making promotions significantly harder to come by. It's near impossible to justify the need for an L5 role when you already have L4s doing the work. No matter how far outside their level competencies a person works, that work becomes L4 work... because an L4 is successfully performing it. It's a deeply silly and frustrating system.
makeitdouble 10mo ago
Smaller details for your bigger picture: > 1. Promotions are not a reward for past performance. Instead, they are a bet that you will contribute more towards those goals with a promotion than without one. It's both. You reasonably can't keep someone in the same position for 5 years when their market value has long gone past that point and they're expecting more. Even if you're not sure they won't be Peter principled out in the better paying position. The better way if to have an internal pay scale that allows for more specialization without more responsibility, but that's IMHO rare and requires managers that can handle that. > demonstrating performance at your boss's level To note, it often results in advices close to "do X job for a while and we'll let you have it", which looks like a no risk move for the company but is not without downsides. I've seen people being half managers for a full year before becoming one, and boy does it kill morale. It signals to employees they'll be literally working about their pay grade "for free" for an undefined amount of time, and it's an even worse proposition when they're effectively doing two jobs at the same time (they're still expected to excel in their current position while proving they can do the other position as well) It's a more delicate balance than it might look at first.
- GMoromisato 10mo ago
  These are great clarifications. And I agree that, taken to an extreme, this is abusive towards employees. But I think most (good) companies handle this pretty well. I've seen a couple of patterns: 1. Your boss trusts that your instinct are aligned with theirs, and gives you more latitude. Maybe they allow you to design architecture your way rather than requiring detailed review. Maybe they delegate reviewing other people's code to you. 2. You understand enough about your boss's goals/constraints that you can represent them. E.g., they might trust you to represent them at a cross-functional meeting. Either way, your name will come to their mind when promotions are available.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
agumonkey 10mo ago
You have some mistakes stories to avoid ?
alfiedotwtf 10mo ago
> if you come up with a way to save money in other ways, such as automating an external cost, then your increased salary will be worth it lol
begueradj 10mo ago
> if you are demonstrating performance at your boss's level, that's evidence/proof that a promotion is warranted. It can not be farther from the truth. The best way to stay in the bottom is to work hard, to focus on work so that others have time to focus on advertising themselves, take credit of your good work and backstab you for everything else, befriend and lick the shoes strategically -even develop bed skills, for some- while you isolate yourself by sweating and believing everyone will understand or care about how you optimized that for loop.
- dinkleberg 10mo ago
  The keyword in what they wrote is "demonstrating". You do still need to advertise what you've done.
  - hcfman 10mo ago
    So basically you need to do a lot of bla bla bla bla ?>
- GMoromisato 10mo ago
  Cynicism is a seductive drug. It makes you feel good because you don't have to do anything--the game is rigged, so why bother trying? But like all drugs it is ultimately self-sabotaging. Careers are like love: you have to risk heartbreak or you'll never experience joy.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- close04 10mo ago
  I don't think there's a one size fits all here. If you don't go out of your comfort zone and "do more" you may never get a promotion because you're seen as average. But it's also true that if you work hard and constantly deliver you may still never get the promotion because you're seen as critical where you are. You might be disappointed either way. Like any recipe, there are many ingredients needed to pull it off. Delivering results, solving your boss' or boss' boss problems, doing it visibly, having support from above, doing it at the right time, etc. all contribute.
rendaw 10mo ago
I really don't get this > if you are demonstrating performance at your boss's level, that's evidence/proof that a promotion is warranted If you're an engineering IC, and your boss is a manager with 4 other ICs, your boss's goals are twofold: get at least 5 ICs worth of results from the team, and managing people. So to do what you and TFA suggest literally you can either: - Do 5 ICs worth of work - Start managing people at the same level on your team, on your own initiative I've seen coworkers try to manage their peers, aiming for a promotion. To say the least it harms team unity. I only managed to do the 2nd once when I was thrown into a project with an absentee manager and doubly-booked half-committed members who were actually happy for someone to organize the work. Those sorts of situations are rare. Or maybe that's the unstated qualification. And: Do 5x the amount of work, well... Maybe I'm not thinking outside the box enough here, but I need some examples of how this is generally achievable. Maybe this was specifically _not_ about the IC-manager divide, and more like managers and manager-managers? What I'd more generally expect is for a manager to explicitly put you in charge of a small, short term project with one or two other people and see how it goes: can everyone contribute, did you achieve results, were you transparent, how did you interact with the other members, etc.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- GMoromisato 10mo ago
  This is a good question. I compressed too much: instead of "performance at your boss's level" I really meant, "helping to achieve your boss's goals". If you're an engineering IC in a team of 5, what are your boss's goals? It's usually things like: hit your deadlines, avoid production bug catastrophes, and maybe add features that make the sales people happy. How can your boss achieve those goals? I have a few ideas: a) Processes: Introduce or refine processes for the team to ensure high-quality code or to gain efficiencies. b) Mentoring: Help members of the team to function at their highest level. c) Clearing Obstacles: Coordinate with other teams so they don't slow you down. E.g., make sure teams you depend on are on schedule, and if not, adapt and adjust. But this is just an example. I think the easiest thing to do is ask your boss what their goals are. What does success look like to them? Once you know that, you might be able to come up with ways of helping that they might not have thought of.
cubefox 10mo ago
> 1. Promotions are not a reward for past performance. Instead, they are a bet that you will contribute more towards those goals with a promotion than without one. > 2. As the OP says, if you are demonstrating performance at your boss's level, that's evidence/proof that a promotion is warranted. That's not evidence for 1. At least you haven't explained a reason why it would be.
LiquidSky 10mo ago
This is premised on promotions and other work rewards having any kind of rational basis or connection to the work. It could simply be that spending time with your boss makes them know and like you more, and people tend to reward people they know and like, making up some post hoc rationalization about performance or whatever to justify it. No one wants to think of themselves like this, though, so they would never admit, even to themselves, that this is what's going on, but I suspect for most people it's the actual reality.

raverbashing 10mo ago

1 is correct. You can't expect the person to get better when promoted, rather you move them to the job they are already (almost) doing

pants2 10mo ago
Ideally with increased autonomy and decision-making ability that makes them more effective.

gloryjulio 10mo ago

> 1. Promotions are not a reward for past performance. Instead, they are a bet that you will contribute more towards those goals with a promotion than without one. Actually, you operate on the next level for certain amount of the time. You work with your manager to file for your promotion case. That's how the typical big corps work with promotions. So technically, it is using your past experience to prove that you are operating at the next level

ryandrake 10mo ago
> Actually, you operate on the next level for certain amount of the time. You work with your manager to file for your promotion case. That's how the typical big corps work with promotions. This has always struck me as a pretty juicy deal going for the corporation. They get N years of "next level" work out of you while still being able to pay those N years in "previous level" salary. Good deal for them. How ridiculous the opposite sounds: You pay me at the next level for 3 years, and only then I'll know you're serious and will start working at that level. You'd get laughed out of the room. But the company has this exact deal in reverse.
- gloryjulio 10mo ago
  That's true. I am out of the promotion game grind now. Personally, I have reached my ceiling and the time is better spent else where.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- akdas 10mo ago
  One thing that I've seen implemented to prevent that is to have the pay bands for level N and N+1 overlap. So in the time that you're doing "next level" work, you're expecting to be at the top of your current pay band, and then the promotion doesn't automatically give you a big pay raise, but it unlocks a pay band that you can go up in. This works if performing at the top of your current level equates to performing at the bottom of the next level. That said, there's a problem where sometimes a "promotion" is really a new role, meaning to perform at the next level, you have to kind of not perform well at the current level.
- jkubicek 10mo ago
  > > Actually, you operate on the next level for certain amount of the time. You work with your manager to file for your promotion case. That's how the typical big corps work with promotions. > This has always struck me as a pretty juicy deal going for the corporation. They get N years of "next level" work out of you while still being able to pay those N years in "previous level" salary. Good deal for them. My current company used to work this way, but they moved to a "needs-based" promo process. You can be promoted to L5 if your manager can justify the need for an L5. Which ends up making promotions significantly harder to come by. It's near impossible to justify the need for an L5 role when you already have L4s doing the work. No matter how far outside their level competencies a person works, that work becomes L4 work... because an L4 is successfully performing it. It's a deeply silly and frustrating system.

makeitdouble 10mo ago

Smaller details for your bigger picture: > 1. Promotions are not a reward for past performance. Instead, they are a bet that you will contribute more towards those goals with a promotion than without one. It's both. You reasonably can't keep someone in the same position for 5 years when their market value has long gone past that point and they're expecting more. Even if you're not sure they won't be Peter principled out in the better paying position. The better way if to have an internal pay scale that allows for more specialization without more responsibility, but that's IMHO rare and requires managers that can handle that. > demonstrating performance at your boss's level To note, it often results in advices close to "do X job for a while and we'll let you have it", which looks like a no risk move for the company but is not without downsides. I've seen people being half managers for a full year before becoming one, and boy does it kill morale. It signals to employees they'll be literally working about their pay grade "for free" for an undefined amount of time, and it's an even worse proposition when they're effectively doing two jobs at the same time (they're still expected to excel in their current position while proving they can do the other position as well) It's a more delicate balance than it might look at first.

GMoromisato 10mo ago
These are great clarifications. And I agree that, taken to an extreme, this is abusive towards employees. But I think most (good) companies handle this pretty well. I've seen a couple of patterns: 1. Your boss trusts that your instinct are aligned with theirs, and gives you more latitude. Maybe they allow you to design architecture your way rather than requiring detailed review. Maybe they delegate reviewing other people's code to you. 2. You understand enough about your boss's goals/constraints that you can represent them. E.g., they might trust you to represent them at a cross-functional meeting. Either way, your name will come to their mind when promotions are available.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]

agumonkey 10mo ago

You have some mistakes stories to avoid ?

alfiedotwtf 10mo ago

> if you come up with a way to save money in other ways, such as automating an external cost, then your increased salary will be worth it lol

begueradj 10mo ago

> if you are demonstrating performance at your boss's level, that's evidence/proof that a promotion is warranted. It can not be farther from the truth. The best way to stay in the bottom is to work hard, to focus on work so that others have time to focus on advertising themselves, take credit of your good work and backstab you for everything else, befriend and lick the shoes strategically -even develop bed skills, for some- while you isolate yourself by sweating and believing everyone will understand or care about how you optimized that for loop.

dinkleberg 10mo ago
The keyword in what they wrote is "demonstrating". You do still need to advertise what you've done.
- hcfman 10mo ago
  So basically you need to do a lot of bla bla bla bla ?>
GMoromisato 10mo ago
Cynicism is a seductive drug. It makes you feel good because you don't have to do anything--the game is rigged, so why bother trying? But like all drugs it is ultimately self-sabotaging. Careers are like love: you have to risk heartbreak or you'll never experience joy.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
close04 10mo ago
I don't think there's a one size fits all here. If you don't go out of your comfort zone and "do more" you may never get a promotion because you're seen as average. But it's also true that if you work hard and constantly deliver you may still never get the promotion because you're seen as critical where you are. You might be disappointed either way. Like any recipe, there are many ingredients needed to pull it off. Delivering results, solving your boss' or boss' boss problems, doing it visibly, having support from above, doing it at the right time, etc. all contribute.

rendaw 10mo ago

I really don't get this > if you are demonstrating performance at your boss's level, that's evidence/proof that a promotion is warranted If you're an engineering IC, and your boss is a manager with 4 other ICs, your boss's goals are twofold: get at least 5 ICs worth of results from the team, and managing people. So to do what you and TFA suggest literally you can either: - Do 5 ICs worth of work - Start managing people at the same level on your team, on your own initiative I've seen coworkers try to manage their peers, aiming for a promotion. To say the least it harms team unity. I only managed to do the 2nd once when I was thrown into a project with an absentee manager and doubly-booked half-committed members who were actually happy for someone to organize the work. Those sorts of situations are rare. Or maybe that's the unstated qualification. And: Do 5x the amount of work, well... Maybe I'm not thinking outside the box enough here, but I need some examples of how this is generally achievable. Maybe this was specifically _not_ about the IC-manager divide, and more like managers and manager-managers? What I'd more generally expect is for a manager to explicitly put you in charge of a small, short term project with one or two other people and see how it goes: can everyone contribute, did you achieve results, were you transparent, how did you interact with the other members, etc.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
GMoromisato 10mo ago
This is a good question. I compressed too much: instead of "performance at your boss's level" I really meant, "helping to achieve your boss's goals". If you're an engineering IC in a team of 5, what are your boss's goals? It's usually things like: hit your deadlines, avoid production bug catastrophes, and maybe add features that make the sales people happy. How can your boss achieve those goals? I have a few ideas: a) Processes: Introduce or refine processes for the team to ensure high-quality code or to gain efficiencies. b) Mentoring: Help members of the team to function at their highest level. c) Clearing Obstacles: Coordinate with other teams so they don't slow you down. E.g., make sure teams you depend on are on schedule, and if not, adapt and adjust. But this is just an example. I think the easiest thing to do is ask your boss what their goals are. What does success look like to them? Once you know that, you might be able to come up with ways of helping that they might not have thought of.

cubefox 10mo ago

> 1. Promotions are not a reward for past performance. Instead, they are a bet that you will contribute more towards those goals with a promotion than without one. > 2. As the OP says, if you are demonstrating performance at your boss's level, that's evidence/proof that a promotion is warranted. That's not evidence for 1. At least you haven't explained a reason why it would be.

LiquidSky 10mo ago

This is premised on promotions and other work rewards having any kind of rational basis or connection to the work. It could simply be that spending time with your boss makes them know and like you more, and people tend to reward people they know and like, making up some post hoc rationalization about performance or whatever to justify it. No one wants to think of themselves like this, though, so they would never admit, even to themselves, that this is what's going on, but I suspect for most people it's the actual reality.