Thank you Simon for sharing this! In my experience (Google), promotion is a game in and of itself. I'm of the opinion that it has as much to do w/ how well you play the game as your hard qualifications.
Many qualified candidates do not end up getting promoted (at least not on the 1st try) -- just a fact of life. What I like about the Google process is that -- upon the 1st rejection, you have a list of 2~3 concrete things to work on (also, Google uses a committee based approach to dilute the power of a single manager). As long as you adequately demonstrate that you've done those 2~3 things asked by the 1st committee, the 2nd committee cannot reject you, and they can't add any new items to the list. Hence, your chance of getting promoted on a subsequent try increases significantly ^___^
Interesting to hear about how Google handles this. I really like the idea of using a promotion committee to dilute the power of a manager, but like most things, that has tradeoffs: it also dilutes the power of a _good_ manager. I'm curious about how concrete the action items generated by the committee tend to be; could you share some examples?
As for playing the "game" (or "politics"), I tend to gently push my clients away from that framing. Everyone wants to award promotions to people who have done great work. Sure, the definition of "great work" varies from person to person, and it sometimes takes some diplomacy to figure out exactly what each person is looking for. But most workplaces are not an episode of Succession, and if you expect everyone around you to care solely about personal power, then that will become the truth.
I was rejected on my very first promo from eng1 to eng2 at Google (back in the day in 2013 maybe?) because the committee said "I didn't work on impactful enough projects" while I did everything my manager told me to do. Naturally as an eng1, that's what one does!! :)
Howdy Simon -- I think it varies greatly from committees (it's not a fixed group of people, membership changes constantly :) In my particular case, the feedback was quite concrete, e.g.
1. We liked what Tan is doing for project X (but X is still ongoing). Come back when X is done
2. We want to see more of project X to demonstrate that Tan is not a one-hit wonder (I'm paraphrasing :)
3. We want to see more evidence of project planning artifacts.
It really helps to have an experienced manager or someone who can properly interpret this feedback and turn them into an actionable plan. That's why it's as much an art as science =)
Very nice, those are quite actionable (though I'd make sure to clarify what they have in mind for "project planning artifacts"). Irina's example of "I didn't work on impactful enough projects" is a sadly more common one; in that case, we need to fish for examples.
Thanks for this Simon! There are so many things that I have yet to experience for myself as an early software engineer, and this article gave me a lot to think about in terms of how I can approach those situations when the time comes. I found your example questions particularly helpful. Even outside of promotion discussions, I think these are such great questions to ask in regular 1-1s in order for me and my manager to better understand each other.
Thanks for sharing this Simon! There are a few thoughts I had as I read this...
1. The article appears to confer almost absolute authority to the direct manager - this is often close to true, but it’s dangerous to coach individuals to always work with their manager regardless of the situation surrounding a missed promotion.
2. If the goal is a promotion, this article doesn’t deal with the ability of the manager to help make that happen. Does the manager have the reputation to help them advocate for the “next level” projects? Is the work of the team just not the type of work that is considered “next level”? If not, the manager or the team might be the limiting factor and not the individual. Some analysis about the type of work of the team and the reputation of the manager is often necessary.
3. I like the Shop it around your network section. This is great advice, and it will help people get insight into how well-aligned their manager’s views are with the rest of the organization. There is risk of confirmation bias if they pick people that are already their advocates, but getting input from outside their immediate team is crucial.
4. You mention calibration, but it would be useful to recommend asking their manager (and their network) about how the calibrations went. Were a lot of people disappointed? Were there no promotions at all and the alternative was being laid off? This can help frame the news in some context that is useful.
5. This is generally good advice for junior/early career people as they are at the mercy of their manager more than most, but I think it would be helpful to give more scenarios for matching the manager’s views with the “around your network” feedback. If the message matches, then their manager is probably right, and the next steps you recommend are the right ones. If they are radically divergent, it might mean that they need to change their manager to change their fortunes.
Thanks for reading, Isaac! Your comments are a gold mine as always, so allow me to plug your writing (https://medium.com/@isaac.adams) in case other folks are interested in it.
I absolutely agree that the manager's authority and power vary wildly. I've seen the whole spectrum between "My manager refused to submit me for promotion" and "My manager focused all their energy on getting me this promotion". Ultimately, what really matters is learning where the bottleneck was, and learning how to get past it next time. Even if your manager is powerless, they're an essential (but not the sole) resource in that learning process.
I really like the suggestion about asking how calibrations went. Some of the specifics of that meeting will be guarded, but it's worth digging for whatever details you can.
I certainly agree that there are situations in which you need to change your manager (or company) in order to achieve the progress you deserve. But some people default to this strategy whenever they encounter resistance, so I try to gently nudge them towards getting along rather than getting out. Of course, some other people lean too hard the other way, so I nudge them the opposite direction!
Such a great post! I loved the healthy mix of practical advice combined with acceptance of things out of our control. It's important to recognize that.
Thanks for reading, Irina! Looking at your substack, it seems like we care about a lot of the same stuff; I shall follow your work with great interest. :)
Thank you Simon for sharing this! In my experience (Google), promotion is a game in and of itself. I'm of the opinion that it has as much to do w/ how well you play the game as your hard qualifications.
Many qualified candidates do not end up getting promoted (at least not on the 1st try) -- just a fact of life. What I like about the Google process is that -- upon the 1st rejection, you have a list of 2~3 concrete things to work on (also, Google uses a committee based approach to dilute the power of a single manager). As long as you adequately demonstrate that you've done those 2~3 things asked by the 1st committee, the 2nd committee cannot reject you, and they can't add any new items to the list. Hence, your chance of getting promoted on a subsequent try increases significantly ^___^
Thanks for reading, Tan!
Interesting to hear about how Google handles this. I really like the idea of using a promotion committee to dilute the power of a manager, but like most things, that has tradeoffs: it also dilutes the power of a _good_ manager. I'm curious about how concrete the action items generated by the committee tend to be; could you share some examples?
As for playing the "game" (or "politics"), I tend to gently push my clients away from that framing. Everyone wants to award promotions to people who have done great work. Sure, the definition of "great work" varies from person to person, and it sometimes takes some diplomacy to figure out exactly what each person is looking for. But most workplaces are not an episode of Succession, and if you expect everyone around you to care solely about personal power, then that will become the truth.
I was rejected on my very first promo from eng1 to eng2 at Google (back in the day in 2013 maybe?) because the committee said "I didn't work on impactful enough projects" while I did everything my manager told me to do. Naturally as an eng1, that's what one does!! :)
So yes, the committee approach is imperfect.
Howdy Simon -- I think it varies greatly from committees (it's not a fixed group of people, membership changes constantly :) In my particular case, the feedback was quite concrete, e.g.
1. We liked what Tan is doing for project X (but X is still ongoing). Come back when X is done
2. We want to see more of project X to demonstrate that Tan is not a one-hit wonder (I'm paraphrasing :)
3. We want to see more evidence of project planning artifacts.
It really helps to have an experienced manager or someone who can properly interpret this feedback and turn them into an actionable plan. That's why it's as much an art as science =)
Very nice, those are quite actionable (though I'd make sure to clarify what they have in mind for "project planning artifacts"). Irina's example of "I didn't work on impactful enough projects" is a sadly more common one; in that case, we need to fish for examples.
Thanks for this Simon! There are so many things that I have yet to experience for myself as an early software engineer, and this article gave me a lot to think about in terms of how I can approach those situations when the time comes. I found your example questions particularly helpful. Even outside of promotion discussions, I think these are such great questions to ask in regular 1-1s in order for me and my manager to better understand each other.
Looking forward to your next one! 😁
Thanks for sharing this Simon! There are a few thoughts I had as I read this...
1. The article appears to confer almost absolute authority to the direct manager - this is often close to true, but it’s dangerous to coach individuals to always work with their manager regardless of the situation surrounding a missed promotion.
2. If the goal is a promotion, this article doesn’t deal with the ability of the manager to help make that happen. Does the manager have the reputation to help them advocate for the “next level” projects? Is the work of the team just not the type of work that is considered “next level”? If not, the manager or the team might be the limiting factor and not the individual. Some analysis about the type of work of the team and the reputation of the manager is often necessary.
3. I like the Shop it around your network section. This is great advice, and it will help people get insight into how well-aligned their manager’s views are with the rest of the organization. There is risk of confirmation bias if they pick people that are already their advocates, but getting input from outside their immediate team is crucial.
4. You mention calibration, but it would be useful to recommend asking their manager (and their network) about how the calibrations went. Were a lot of people disappointed? Were there no promotions at all and the alternative was being laid off? This can help frame the news in some context that is useful.
5. This is generally good advice for junior/early career people as they are at the mercy of their manager more than most, but I think it would be helpful to give more scenarios for matching the manager’s views with the “around your network” feedback. If the message matches, then their manager is probably right, and the next steps you recommend are the right ones. If they are radically divergent, it might mean that they need to change their manager to change their fortunes.
Thanks for reading, Isaac! Your comments are a gold mine as always, so allow me to plug your writing (https://medium.com/@isaac.adams) in case other folks are interested in it.
I absolutely agree that the manager's authority and power vary wildly. I've seen the whole spectrum between "My manager refused to submit me for promotion" and "My manager focused all their energy on getting me this promotion". Ultimately, what really matters is learning where the bottleneck was, and learning how to get past it next time. Even if your manager is powerless, they're an essential (but not the sole) resource in that learning process.
I really like the suggestion about asking how calibrations went. Some of the specifics of that meeting will be guarded, but it's worth digging for whatever details you can.
I certainly agree that there are situations in which you need to change your manager (or company) in order to achieve the progress you deserve. But some people default to this strategy whenever they encounter resistance, so I try to gently nudge them towards getting along rather than getting out. Of course, some other people lean too hard the other way, so I nudge them the opposite direction!
Such a great post! I loved the healthy mix of practical advice combined with acceptance of things out of our control. It's important to recognize that.
Thank you and keep them coming!
Thanks for reading, Irina! Looking at your substack, it seems like we care about a lot of the same stuff; I shall follow your work with great interest. :)