I think bad management are people who got into management because it pays better, it is necessary for career advancement or social status. Those people do management because that is what they have to do to get their personal goal, money, promotions, fame.
Good managers are people who do it because they like it and they excel at it. Some might have started doing management for different reasons, but stayed because they discovered it to be their thing.
That is the reason for that bimodal distribution and why it looks as it does.
I think tons of jobs that pay very well, make you famous, etc. actually don't have a bell-curve-distribution for the same reasons.
I've found that that's mostly a fig leaf. It was the primary reason I left places. When I asked how to get the promotion and got that response, I got the promotion by moving to another company.
And of course I performed well in the new role, because it never was about performance. It was about people not expecting juniors to grow so quickly to medior, or about not having a free "promotion slot" this year, or it's just not a priority, or other organizational stuff.
For junior/mid level developers backwards-facing levelling doesn't really matter. For senior it matters more, and for staff/manager it matters a lot more.
There are usually organizational constraints like you mention, but that doesn't preclude there being a reason for backwards-facing levelling.
Junior to mid it doesn’t matter. A “senior” and above based on the leveling guidelines at every tech company that I’m aware of is not based on whether you “code well” or even how knowledgeable you are. It’s based on “scope” and “impact”.
As a medior, I've led a team of seniors on a mission critical project for several years, after which my manager said "maybe we should consider promoting you in another year or so".
And then it’s time to change jobs now that you can answer soft skill questions in STAR format that shows “scope” and “impact”.
But a new job is not going to give you a senior position if you haven’t already demonstrated it at your previous job.
Yes, I realize titles are meaningless outside of major tech companies with real leveling guidelines. I worked at your standard enterprise/Corp dev jobs all of my career until 2020.
Well, yes. That was my point. When companies say they want you to perform at the next level before promoting you, it's just something to say that's semi-friendly and still means no.
What I’m saying is that in either case, you have to perform at the next level to get the job.
A: Perform at the next level, go through the internal promo process and get promoted.
B: if you want to change jobs and get a job at the next level, you still have to work at the next level at your current job so you can convince your potential employer that you’re capable.
In other words, there is no way of getting promoted reliably without operating at that next level first.
I just added that in my experience A doesn't really exist. I have seen plenty of companies that pretend they have an A-policy, but none that actually do. Believing companies when they say you get a promotion when you perform at the next level is naive.
And even if it's true - which you shouldn't believe without proof - strategy B is still faster than following strategy A.
I’ve been doing this for a long time. 25 years between 6 companies you’ve never heard of and one former F10 non tech company. There were no formal leveling guidelines and I only got one raise that was more than 4% and that was in 2000. If I wanted a “raise” I had to switch jobs. I agree with you completely.
But now I do work at $BigTech. The promo process is real. People get promoted every quarter.
On the other hand, it is still easier to “boomerang” - get hired at the next level at a new company and then come back - than it is to get promoted at your current company.
Also because “salary compression and inversion” are real. Meaning, that getting promoted internally will still lead to lower compensation than someone coming in at your same level.
