I need / am supposed to offer regular career planning with my team, but many of them are quite happy and settled doing what they're doing - and I'm totally cool with that because they do it well and are enjoying their work. They have families, they have lives outside of work, and they want to just get on with the work rather than constantly climbing the ladder or doing performance review documents.
I myself am more interested in the work I am doing right now (i.e. building features that deliver more value to the business than the effort/time/money it takes to build them) rather than constantly planning semi-arbitrary "targets" every 6 months for a promotion I may not even want.
So - how do you manage people's career planning (including yourself) when they have no interest in progressing? Is it OK to just say, "I'm happy doing what I'm doing"?
The first step is creating enough trust and openness in the relationship to get past this communication impasse.
Promotion ladders are one (of many) tools for expressing what the company desires of its employees. For employees seeking advancement, they also work as a tool for discovering an employee's motivation. If promotion isn't the motivation - express what is the motivation. Figuring out that someone loves the puzzle of debugging, or takes pride in being the expert, or is a 9-5 journeyman who wants a stable, competitive salary for their contribution can be the key to having a fruitful conversation.
Once both sides are honest about motivation and satisfaction (the manager obviously also needs/wants something from the employee...) then there's space for adult-to-adult conversations about how and if those motivations line up.
In my experience, managers rarely turn away skilled, drama-free, reliable contributors. But we know our employees aren't totally truthful/open with us about these sensitive topics - so we don't take "I'm fine... leave me alone" at face value.
I've tried to bring up these kind of big picture frustrations with managers before, but they're always focused on surviving the next 3-6 months.
Nothing to retain employees, nothing to acquire new ones, nothing to retain the DNA of the original company.
- I take pride on what I do, I really care a lot about my career, but my main motivation for working 9-5 is my paycheck. I want more money but not more responsibilities (sounds crazy, I know, but the outcome I produce allows me to ask for this). No company out there is going to give me a free salary raise, hence I switch jobs.
It doesn't (necessarily) mean you're underpaid currently, it's totally possible your boss recognizes your contributions, wants you to be happy, and has the budget to give you what you want or close to it.
Not really. wanting less money and more responsibilities is what would be crazy.
"I want to be recognized and compensated proportionally to the value I create on your behalf. Furthermore, I suspect that the tasks/goals you choose for me are wasting opportunities for me to learn and for you to grow. Hence, I am bearing the long-term risks of your investment-decisions in my time, and you are reaping the short-term benefits.
"Because you seem to be unable to recognize the value I produce, and because you are squandering the opportunity of my time, I do not believe you are suitable for your job. It is possible there exists a job definition for which you are 'killing it', but it is not apparent from my perspective.
"So it is impossible for us to have an open honest conversation."
Tangent: That comment showed me, after 40+ years of adult working, that any individual person is filling multiple roles, each defined by other peoples' perspectives and needs. Indeed, that individual may not even be aware that they are in those roles, much less that those roles may be crucial to those other people.
Note that I almost edited "multiple roles" to "multiple work roles," but this probably applies to most social relationships.
Huh.
but who calculates this "value"? And what is it relative to? That's partially why stocks exist, to try and answer that question.
Imagine someone coming to you and saying it.
- Hey, how's life? What do you think about this project?
- Well, it's shitty, to be honest. Didn't expect it to be this boring. And this on-call... I'm looking for a job that would pay 50% more for 50% less work.
- Yeah, that's the way it is in this company. The owner is a greedy crook, and the fish rots from the head, you know. We're told to lie to employees that there's no budget for pay rises, while the profits have doubled. It's all bs. But I can refer you to a few places that pay what you want. I'm thinking to leave too, btw.
"This work is good enough for me for now, but in the future it might not be anymore, in which case I'll want to take it into my own hands to find something new. But since for the moment I like the work, I'm not necessarily thinking about that possibility in the future."
If we aren't taking people at face value I don't know why we should assume the second comment is the truth. "I'm ready for something new" sounds like the "It's not you, it's me" of reasons for leaving a company. It often doesn't benefit an employee to give a real reason they are leaving and many times those reasons have nothing to do with how their employer handled career progression.
For example, if a engineer works at a large company (i.e. one in which a single engineer or manager has no real power to push for organizational change) there is little reason to voice their opposition to the overall direction of the company during performance reviews. It also doesn't make sense for that person to burn bridges by unnecessarily criticizing that direction on the way out the door.
How do you propose doing that given that a manager -- by their very job description -- does not have your best interests at heart and will happily use those interests against you if doing so answers "yes" to the central question: "But Is It Good For The COMPANY?"
However, often that something new is just the same type of work.
E.g. imagine that the tech organization is an orchestra. All you play is the same small set of Bach concertos. Your lead violinist likes it just fine, until she leaves because she is ready for something "new". Turns out to be some place where they play the same dozen Vivaldi concertos. Or not even that, but just a different selection of Bach.
E.g. an embedded developer leaves "for something new", where something new is working on a bluetooth driver, exactly like now, but on a different SoC, with a different BT chip, and two kernel versions higher.
"Drama" is a way to express personal emotions, and probably wishes to change things to better, which I really hope my manager cares about.
1. that I trust her/him
2. that I believe he can actually push the change that would help me through the company
2 has been a problem far far more often.
A phrase I used a lot is "what would you like to differently, or what would you like to learn?" That's often an opening to getting someone the kind of work they'd prefer to do, but are reluctant to bring up.
Just to give insight into why some ICs don't respond to this question. I asked my manager for promotion, he kept stringing me along. One of the reasons for said string-along was that the kind of stuff I want to work on is not big enough. Why couldn't he tell me this 6 months ago? I have no clue.
But I have learned to never trust managers with this experience. Managers will have to work hard to earn my trust.
The key is to (1) make this arrangement explicit and regularly check in, and (2) find non-promotion ways of rewarding and recognizing good work. This will be dependent on the person, and isn't as clear cut as the promotions track.
I think it's great to just be happy with what you're doing, and focus on other things in life.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29939161-radical-candor
I did exactly this in my early career and it worked great in small organizations. Mid to late career, I worked for a tech megacorp and was essentially forced to ladder climb because it was up or out. Eventually, hit a grade level that was oversaturated and got offered a package to leave on the 13th round of layoffs in my time there. My seagull manager at the time had no idea of how much organizational tribal knowledge they lost, but everyone my grade or lower who worked with me did.
I postulate that the size of the larger organization is inverse to the applicability of the "guru" strategy.
I truly don't think it's that challenging to allow for an alternative path. But as a low level manager at a big corp there's only so much you can do, I get it.
i'm sure this is a typo, but IDK what was intended.
senior manager?
1. Are happy in their current title, company, responsibilities, etc.
2. Don't want to get a big raise
3. Just want to "do their job and go home"
I'm thinking of exactly two. There may be one or two I'm forgetting. Coincidentally they were also two of the least skilled developers I've worked with, I think in part because they had very little interest in growing professionally.
There are plenty of important, fulfilling, well-compensated careers in which you don't need to grow, learn, and expand. Software development is not one of them.
I've almost been fired for saying something like this (that my goal was to perform well in my current role). They wanted to get rid of me because I didn't meet their standards for "ambition". Now I had already been filling a role above my grade for 2 years and they weren't promoting me. I'm not going to continue trying to be promoted without hope, so of course I'm just going to try being successful in my actual role.
At some point it will create a generation of entrepreneurs who will realize "if I have to do all this, for someone else, and it's about the same if I do it for myself, why do I work for them?" Assuming competition is actually possible, it becomes a valid question. As an employee you shouldn't be expected to work like a business owner, not unless you have significant stake (are a partial owner) as well.
This thought has already crossed my mind. I mean, I am far from being the hypothetical perfect employee who is simultaneously an expert on all existing technologies, can successfuly manage teams of developers, talks to customers, notices opportunities on the market for new products, and whatever else... but I thought that if I ever became that kind of guy, I would have to be really stupid to continue working at the same company in return for, dunno, maybe 30% raise, but probably also extra overtime and being on the phone 24/7... when the alternative would be to start my own company. Especially if I also knew other people with the same skills whom I could trust, e.g. my former colleagues.
So I have two explanations, not sure which one is correct, maybe it's a bit of both...
A) There actually are people who reach this level of perfect all-knowing and all-capable employee, who nonetheless do not start their own companies. Maybe they lack the capital: either they are not paid well and they do not notice the opportunity to change jobs, or they have insane spending habits. Or maybe the lack the courage, or ambition, or just have a huge blind spot no one told them about. This might be one person in a thousand, but the idea is that if you find one such employee, it's like winning at lottery -- you let the guy run your business but keep putting all the money in your pockets, and you kinda retire except not officially because you do not want the guy to notice that he is now running the entire business alone. Does this actually happen in real life?
B) Of course, such perfection is unachievable. It is just presented to you as a realistic goal that "obviously everyone else does", so that you feel like an impostor, and don't ask for a raise.
Very true. I feel like competition is not possible in many ventures. The big players can crush you with stuff like loss leaders or just economy of scale.
To answer the actual question of why work for them instead of going at it on your own -- starting and building a business is hard. Even if you are capable of doing everything, and have the ambitions, it's still hard. Getting a job is relatively a lot easier, say what you will about tech interviews (btw, I do agree that tech interviews suck and are needlessly difficult). From that perspective, working for someone else is the easier way out, with a stable salary.
Other than that I agree with you, in most companies now you do have to play that culture game even if you're pretty happy with where you are now.
Find a better job, that place sucks.
Basically, all my options suck and this one happens to suck the least. It's a sad reality, but life is full of suffering and overall my life has less suffering than many others in the world.
They are there to progress their career, as well as every body else. So, if your promotion, or having you moving to a different team gets in the way, rest assure they will make everything in their power to fight it.
Simply put, I don't pay any attention to the things discussed with my manager around my career. I attend my 1-1 because I have to. I honestly don't get any value out of it.
I have enough experience to know how to progress my career.
There are only two things that keep me working for a given company:
- working on interesting projects, making an impact
- being payed well enough
Great managers do exist, but you have to make sure that you are held accountable as much as they do you.
1:1 time is as much as their job as it is yours to develop a story and convictions in what you need.
(I'm a director-level with 4 managers under me and 30 engineers total under them, and I've been managing for ~10 years now.)
Theoretically, 1:1s are YOUR time (not your manager's) to talk about whatever you think is important. If you're going into 1:1s with nothing to say, then it's wasted time and you might as well not have 1:1s. But this is basically 30-60 minutes of dedicated attention from your manager! This is your chance to bring up any topic that you think is worth talking to them about! Yoou have their undivided attention! What's pissing you off about work? What gets you excited? What are your goals?
I always walk into a 1:1 with someone with an agenda in place, but for a report of mine, I let them go first. If they don't have anything to say, then I'll ask questions on their behalf. If they are a high performer, then these questions are often things like "are you happy working on this project?" or "what interests you the most about this project?" or "I've been thinking about this other project that you might enjoy working on."
If they are lower performers, then I'll reframe the conversation around how to improve. "It feels like you're struggling with X. Why do you think that is and how can I help?" or "I've noticed you've been committing code less frequently than normal. Is everything okay?" It only becomes a problem if it drags on with no improvement, but this is the first line of defense for us to level up those low performers.
For me, a 1:1 is my chance to get to know my employee better, and it's their chance to leverage my skill set, influence, and authority. Are you blocked my some other team? I can help! Are you bored with your projects? I can help! Do you hate this other engineer? I can help!
But if they walk into the 1:1 and say "I don't have anything to talk about" and then don't want to play ball with my questions, then there's not a whole lot I can do to help out.
I firmly believe that you don't get what you don't ask for, so if you aren't utilizing your 1:1 time with your boss, then your situation is unlikely to improve.
My 1:1s with my boss often extend closer to the 60 minute mark weekly. These aren't status updates. If my manager doesn't know what I'm doing on a weekly basis, then either I'm not communicating well or they aren't doing their jobs. This is not a status update meeting. I go into my 1:1s with topics designed to solve problems. "I've got this engineer who is struggling. What advice do you have?" or "I"m frustrated by the slowness of IT to ship laptops to new hires. How can we fix this?" or "In five years, I want your job. How do I get there?" and so on.
I've been fortunate in that every boss I've had for the last 10 years has played ball when I say those things. And my most recent boss told the entire org when I left that I was one of his best reports, because I knew what I wanted and I communicated it clearly. He didn't have to guess about whether I was happy or what my goals were -- I knew what they were, and he was able to help me the most out of everyone.
This is your chance to level up with your boss's help. If they won't help, then find a new boss. Easier said than done, but having a boss that has your back is invaluable, and the 1:1 is the place to form that relationship.
I hope you find a new manager that cares about your career progression, your productivity, and perhaps most importantly, your happiness. There are managers like that out there. I wish you the best of luck going forward.
I was just trying to be honest and share my experience from small/medium/corporate companies. Maybe I was not lucky enough, but in my experience good managers are not the common case. Company politics and product/customer priorities often win over people requests for change.
That is why, if I am not happy in doing what I do, I simply move on and get another job. That is just way easier.
If my manager had asked me this yesterday I might've said that my gf left and I was recently diagnosed bipolar, which is the truth, but he didn't. He just took me off the engineering team.
Dead Comment
Yikes, there is a lot more to 1:1s than just talking career progression.
> The Peter Principle states that a person who is competent at their job will earn a promotion to a position that requires different skills. ... If the person is competent in the new role, they will be promoted again and will continue to be promoted until reaching a level at which they are incompetent.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle)
This is exacerbated by the "up or out" culture in many organizations.
Just because someone is great at their job doesn't mean their job should change, as is traditionally expected by promotions. You can recognise and reward their contributions and find ways for them to grow further _within_ that role, or in ways that extend that role without fundamentally altering it.
The person that's replacing me, is basically the me of two years ago. So that's going to end well...
I have learnt a lot in the last couple of years and I reckon my own 'level of incompetence' is somewhat higher as a result.
I like to combat this by giving my team goals to accomplish or lead some task on their own. Even if they are individual contributors they can still network internally to put their problem solving skills on display. An example would be if they took the initiative to have a discussion with HR/Sales/operations/anyone external about some pain points and how my team could help. Then spearhead the solution.
Note: I manage financial analyst so it’s a bit different but they have an inclination to become siloed with headphones on all the time similar to developers so it could apply.
Your team stays static or functionally shrinks (by adding one or more non-specific knowledge managers/PM to the team instead of individual contributors) even while the company experiences hyper growth both internally and externally.
You work your butt off while people get promoted around you. Your team is starved and starts to show cracks.
Your work get subbed out bit by bit as you tread water until the last bit, that specific knowledge is power grabbed away and put on a 2 stream agile program and it's not your job anymore...
And that's when the "manager speak" begins about "change".
Secondly - Make sure they see a copy of their review in which you praise their abilities within the team. That will help to reassure them that there are no penalties for not wanting to 'progress'. Slightly OT since it isn't IT related but I once asked a PC (police Constable, aka a British 'Bobby') why they had remained a PC for 25 years (I was curious). Their answer was - Mo' Money, Mo' Problems. In other words they preferred the day to day life and didn't want more Paperwork, more BS and ass-kissing (sadly a prerequisite for ladder climbing) and they really did not want the hassles of managing others. I did a mental re-take and thought fair enough. I am slightly ashamed that my initial ‘hunch’ was because they lacked the skills or abilities to gain a promotion (my bad and I was glad I asked rather than silently assuming/judging).
One thing to think about doing is exploring their responsibilities – Think about their specialities / preferences / interests. If they are a ‘people person’ consider making offering them the role of helping to onboard newcomers on the team. If they have an analytical mind, consider delegating some of the cost centre analysis work to them. Ensure any unofficial roles are noted positively in their next review so that they can see in black and white their value to the team.
They should investigate where that assumption came from, and, given there is data which conflicts with it, what should be done next?
The stakes are high: forcing a bad culture onto employees will drive some of them away from the company, and force others to be unhappy, or to take on roles they aren't suited for and won't perform well in.
A strong company culture would support both people who want to move up the org chart, and those who don't, without prejudice. The good news is that if leadership can get over the (clearly incorrect) belief that every good employee always wants a promotion, they can make a huge improvement in culture, retention, and productivity.
Also let us know how things go