4 ms·
Software's pseudo-meritocracy is especially tricky to navigate. It's hard for everyone; it's even harder for women and minorities. First, asking for "a raise"
by michaelochurch 12y ago
Software's pseudo-meritocracy is especially tricky to navigate. It's hard for everyone; it's even harder for women and minorities.
First, asking for "a raise" is generally going to lead to failure, and complicate the relationship if not done properly. It sounds like you're asking to get more money for the same work, and that'll leave anyone cold: especially a middle-manager. An owner can (in theory) recognize your value and say, "yeah, that number sounds about right" but, if you're asking a middle manager for a raise, you're asking him to sit in a bunch of meetings and argue with assholes on your behalf.
You're better off to ask for a promotion. But there are two problems with that.
The first is that companies often give promotions (whether a title bump, or actual increase of scope) in lieu of raises. "We don't have money in the budget, but we'll certainly let you take on more responsibility if you can get your regular work done". Of course, "if you can get your regular work done" is code for, "we'll give you absolutely no support, and you won't be able to delegate what's on your plate, so we're really just giving you permission to do higher-level work." Of course, these phony promotions eventually lead a person to take the external mobility option.
The second issue is that asking for a promotion is often taken as more confrontational than asking for a raise. You're implying, to your boss, that he missed something. You're questioning his evaluation of you. Companies think of themselves as perfect meritocracies and you make enemies if you challenge that perception. And if you do so while acting on your own behalf, you look like an entitled jerk.
The most effective way to get promoted (and, possibly, to get raises) is to take on more responsibility without asking, hope that it's noticed and, if not, to ask for formal promotion. (You should usually present this, to your manager, as "We both know that titles are silly, but I've been doing a lot of work with other departments, and having that credibility makes them more willing to take my work and my needs seriously." Make it about the benefit to him, not you.) However, taking on responsibility is risky as hell because it usually means you're intruding coveted turf. (This isn't just "big company politics"; you see it in tiny startups, as well. Mad Men is set in small companies and, after Season 3, in a startup.) Sometimes this pays off, but often it backfires and leads to demotion ("allow me to clarify what is your job and what is not your job") or termination. For reasons that are probably cultural, it's clueless white men who are most eager to take on that risk. Hence, they get promotions and raises faster, but also (presumably) get fired more often.
- hnal943 12y agoI think this is great advice. I don't think it supports your assertion that this game is more difficult to play as a woman or a minority. If you claim that "clueless white men" take more risk, and therefore end up on both extremes (promoted or fired) more often, then they aren't privileged.
- mqsiuser 12y agoThey are, but with a price: The price is that they can't show up again at their former company, but now are at their next with ALL the benefits. I usually chose that. Noone gives it to you (on the silver plate). You have to demand it. It's a struggle for everyone. Which is a change (to former times): My dad happily got old in one company (IN ONCE CITY, with friends, family and everything there). HE got the promotions and raises. WHAT changed ?!?
- michaelochurch 12y agoIf you claim that "clueless white men" take more risk, and therefore end up on both extremes (promoted or fired) more often, then they aren't privileged. Most people who are privileged are white. There's definitely a disproportionate representation. Most white people are not privileged, because most people are not privileged. People who talk about "white privilege" as something extended to all whites haven't been in Appalachia recently. Gender is much more complicated. There are overprivileged men and women, but gender norms are the strongest at the bottom and top of society, while the middle is most gender-egalitarian. That's why I have no problem making jokes about "rich Daddies" and "trophy wives" when I lampoon the upper class (which is not the same set of people as "the rich"). They actually are deeply sexist, so those depictions are pretty accurate. The result of this is that the upper class directs overprivileged women to the fatuous (sitting on boards of art galleries without understanding art, fashion, etc.) and overprivileged men to positions of power.
- gizmo 12y ago> Most white people are not privileged, because most people are not privileged. This is a misrepresentation of what white privilege means. It means that all things equal being white gives you an unearned advantage in (western) society. The same applies to gender-privilege, cis-privilege, wealth-privilege, and so on. Our society would be better if we wouldn't give or deny people opportunities based on those attributes. All white people have white privilege, but a white person can obviously still be less privileged than a person of color. You can argue that "most white people are not privileged" because on an absolute privilege scale most white people aren't all doing so great, but that still semantic nonsense for the reason I give above. Nobody makes the ridiculous assertion that being white automatically makes your life awesome, so to use white privilege like that is a straw man. To put it simply: being white and poor in Appalachia sucks, but being a poor minority in Appalachia sucks worse. Therefore white privilege.