Don’t care about this guy, but why would they think that changes in the reporting hierarchy means a promotion? If my boss leaves then I would report to my skip in the interim and in many companies that’s forever.
So just because there’s nobody between me and my skip I got promoted? That’s the most dumb rationale I have ever read.
This guy was already the head of a prominent Alphabet division. If you move him around the executive structure he could have ended up one or two skips below the CEO without that meaning absolute shit .
At that level of organizational hierarchy that’s far from a promotion. He is now the VP of some random AI program that’s way more obtuse and irrelevant than DeepMind.
The only clear public signal of a promotion at executive levels is being a VP and becoming a Chief or a SVP. That’s it.
At companies like Google and Facebook changing titles doesn't mean that you got promoted. A promotion is going from one level to the next one.
This guys was probably an L10 and is still an L10.
Blows my mind that they arrived to this conclusion based on such a weak signal.
I didn’t say it wasn’t important. It is important. I was trying to say that there is a tendency in the tech industry to value new projects over maintenance. And this list was partly in jest.
+1 for each positive and -1 for each negative, maximum score of 4, minimum score of -4, 0 is sideways, salary must be compared against industry salaries… so if industry average rises and yours didn’t rise as much, that is a demotion
This is kind of in jest and just a rough measure. Like if your salary went up 100x this doesn’t capture that. Positive and negative measures tend to be correlated though (I suspect that this looks more like 3 bell curves instead of one). Would be wonderful there was an industry database of this to invalidate or validate guesses.
Extremely bad indicators
- Having no reports
- No longer presenting in company meetings
- No longer being invited to meetings where decisions are made
- Bad seating location
Extremely positive indicators
- In regular staff meetings
- Introduced to VIP guests
- Sit near CEO
Against, this is partly in jest, Dilbert style
Just some things I have noticed…
His new job would be considered a promotion from his old job by most tech workers, if it were laid out for them without the surrounding context of him likely being a repeat abuser of his workers. The uncertainty about whether it’s a promotion is brought along by that context, not the facts of the job change itself.
Going from VP to SVP is most certainly a promotion... In this particular case, this guys was probably an L10 before his leave and is probably still an L10. In companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc; an official promotion is changing levels, not titles.
Becoming a VP can certainly be a promotion, but depending on the corporation being a VP is just a nice high-level title to give to someone too valuable to fire while you put them outside of the main structure. So, it's a promotion in title but a demotion in duties/authority so it doesn't feel bad to the person.
So just because there’s nobody between me and my skip I got promoted? That’s the most dumb rationale I have ever read.
This guy was already the head of a prominent Alphabet division. If you move him around the executive structure he could have ended up one or two skips below the CEO without that meaning absolute shit .
At that level of organizational hierarchy that’s far from a promotion. He is now the VP of some random AI program that’s way more obtuse and irrelevant than DeepMind.
The only clear public signal of a promotion at executive levels is being a VP and becoming a Chief or a SVP. That’s it. At companies like Google and Facebook changing titles doesn't mean that you got promoted. A promotion is going from one level to the next one. This guys was probably an L10 and is still an L10.
Blows my mind that they arrived to this conclusion based on such a weak signal.