
Job Promotion is a Trap - eduardsi
https://sizovs.net/2019/01/13/job-promotion-is-a-trap/
======
triplee
Wait, what? Who is this even written for?

Jobs in other countries? Interview every 3 months? You'll have to move
locations constantly if you keep doing the latter, because you're going to get
known as the person who wastes everyone's time on interviews you likely aren't
taking seriously. Also, word will get out and it's going to be obvious that
you're not at your current job half the time because you're in interviews,
doing tech challenges, etc.

Also, who even has time for this nonsense? I may have in my 20s, but the
market was different then. Now I'm 40 and married with a small child. Pretty
sure this isn't going to go over well, and doesn't fit for a whole slew of
other folks who are even less privileged than I am with my legit career.

Some places are great for job security, but yes salary compression and lack of
employer loyalty is a thing. Job jumping here and there is fine if it works
for you and you're not burning bridges, and promotions work well for some and
not others. Note that you can also change specialities (sideways move), and
improve in your technical track OR go into management. You can also just sit
at a Staff/Senior Staff/Senior Consultant type role for YEARS as a technical
expert that continues to grow but doesn't manage people or projects and get
FAT bonuses as long as you keep your basics relevant.

If I didn't better, I'd think this article was trolling, and not just the
lunacy of someone who had a bad experience and lives in a bubble. Even then,
I'm not sure anymore because it's too hard to tell in 2019.

~~~
bassman9000
_This is a real story (in Russian), that help you understand the problem
better:_

Definitely trolling.

------
thiago_fm
Maybe you(writer of the blogpost) had a bad experience and decided to write
about it, but in reality, that's not how entirely things work.

You are ignoring all the people that had a career and now are CEO of a Forbes
100. Everybody start somewhere and go somewhere. I had a bad experience
getting promoted at a startup and have to report directly to a crazy CEO in a
business running out of money, but that just made me even better. I've learned
so much, after that "traumatic" experience, I went developer mode again and
now I'm in a much better position than I've ever been -- but I saw how many of
my peers would give up and make conclusions at the first time they have a bad
emotional experience at work, even though that when they see around, they see
people building great careers, but they all just think it is "ah, it is just
ball licking, this person has no talent" and just keep taking orders as a
soft. dev their whole lives.

I'm not saying that a developer should go to management or become an
architect, but please don't limit yourself to some emotional response, but
instead, achieve greatness. Don't become to attached to what happened to you,
but instead, look around. Is that really true? With your reasoning, you would
think that whoever is a CTO and is working for a company 10 years is a
terrible and unemployable person, when I actually see the opposite. The more I
move up, the more people send me more "rescue my team/company, I give you
money" and also the more rare I become. I think this is similar for everybody.

BUT if you end up doing some custom code in PHP in a strange framework and
become architect until your company closes and you are in a bad position, that
is sort of on you, to accepting it, not questioning, proposing chances and not
being able to position yourself in the job market well. Your company has their
own interests and you should have yours.

~~~
scotty79
> You are ignoring all the people that had a career and now are CEO of a
> Forbes 100.

I think it's perfectly safe to ignore 100 people when giving general advice.

If you read financial advice you rarely see any attention paid to 100 lottery
winners and if ever, it's in a form of firm statement: "You are not one of
them."

~~~
thiago_fm
You don't need to be the CEO, there is a lot of room for you there. You also
don't need to go to a Forbes 100. It is just an example.

Just get a grip of your life and career and stop thinking that you can't be a
forbes 100 CEO, as soon as you do it, you are really trimming down your
chances, because there are definitely people that think they can, but they
don't get it, but they will be definitely ahead of you.

------
locklock
This is a relatively cynical point of view and seems to assume that nobody
cares about your CV. I think the main point if I can find it is that
promotions _can_ be simply a bargaining tool on the company's part and that
it's your responsibility to make sure you're actually progressing in your own
career, but treating all promotions as a trap seems a bit silly.

Doing interviews for practice is good advice if you're planning on looking for
work in the near future but as someone who's happy with their job the idea of
doing job interviews just for kicks is about the last thing I'd want to do
with my free time.

~~~
CaRDiaK
I agree with what you say here. I would just like to address the point you
make about interviews, after reading about this approach myself some years
back.

Both my current and former gigs came from doing exactly this—going for
interviews to keep fresh.

Just like the Office Space references in the article, for me "it's not because
I'm lazy, it's because I just don't care". It wasn't like I needed the job, I
was just seeing what other places were like, what other problems people had,
what sort of questions I would get asked from place to place and what
different people were looking for in someone of my position to solve those
problems.

When inevitably asked "why do you want to work at X" If I liked what I saw I'd
be straight up with a response along the lines of "well, I'm actually very
happy where I am and not looking to move. But I am interested in seeing what
kind of challenges you face and if my skillset and experience is mutually
beneficial". Before hand, I would update my CV in a style to attract a
conversation. Not a greatest hits of all my work and projects. That's how I
_try_ to make it look different to others that I would see when on the hiring
side of the table.

It's interesting that since doing interviews this way, (I start this process
roughly after a couple of years in each place, probably every four to six
months) each job has made me progressively happier and offered me more of what
I'm looking for. Interesting work, renumeration, culture, autonomy and a
better work/life balance.

Finally I should add that I live in the UK. And that my previous way of going
about getting a new job were working until I felt burnt out, dejected or
unfairly compensated. At which point, I would really want out.

------
virgilp
I personally find doing regular job interviews with no intention of taking the
job as rude. You're wasting other people's time, as well as your own - don't
do that.

Want to make sure that you grow as a developer? Do varied things; continuously
build things that people want. Don't be content to stay in a box where it's
comfortable - occasionally get out of your comfort box to try something new.
You can do all of that at the same company, for many companies. And it's a
much better use of your spare time to learn something new or build something
"just for fun" or to contribute to an interesting OSS project than to attend
interviews.

~~~
kamaal
>>I personally find doing regular job interviews with no intention of taking
the job as rude. You're wasting other people's time, as well as your own -
don't do that.

I'm guessing. Someday, companies will filter out resumes which show too many
job hops. And it makes sense too. People are hired to do do work. And no half
decent project can be done in a mere few months(<1 - 2 yrs), given how much
time it takes people to onboard to new projects, and other company
processes/tools.

If you all you are doing is hop jobs every few months, then you are likely to
leave in a few months if you are offered a position. Why should any one hire a
person who is pretty much making it clear, they have no intention to work,
wants to just spend all day preparing for the next interviews and leave in
months.

You are better off hiring people who have more respect for work.

------
scandox
You've got a great career. You've successfully moved between several
companies. You easily got a job when your last employer went bust. What can go
wrong?

The revolution comes. You're stood up against a wall and shot. You've been
living in a bubble.

What can you do? Ensure you're up to date with the latest revolutionary
thinking and ideology.

You're high in the party hierarchy. You've successfully survived multiple
purges and moved from department to department easily. What can go wrong?

The aliens arrive...

------
notacoward
Job promotion can be a trap, but the OP makes a poor case for it. I've seen
this work out three ways.

First, I've seen people who were very happy and productive in pure hands-on
roles promoted into positions with more and more of a focus on "leadership"
where they seemed inept and unhappy.

Second, there can be an earnings trap. If the salary bands are close (some
even overlap) and bonuses are large, a string of good reviews at the lower
level can bring in more money than a string of ho-hum reviews at the higher
one.

Third, being at a higher level will usually affect how you're interviewed and
evaluated at your next job, and if you're "over level" that effect can be
negative.

The result _can_ be that someone who has been over-promoted will fare poorly
when they interview for their next job. The employer sees someone who is not
particularly strong in their role, with reviews reflecting that, and who might
lack enthusiasm. Then they look at the unpromoted person who has excellent
reviews and plenty of enthusiasm. Seems like a good person to take a chance
on, right? Oh, and BTW, they've been making more so let's make a higher offer.

The moral is: don't pursue promotions and titles for their own sake. Think
about if you want the _job_ , including all of the parts that might actually
be worse than what you already have, and not just the title. Remember, titles
are free for the employer to give. Some will take advantage of their
psychological/cultural importance to give titles _instead_ of anything
meaningful, and that's when it's likely to be a trap.

------
k__
I had the impression a CIO was just a CTO of a non-IT company.

A SaaS company makes its money with IT, so the CTO knows IT.

A car company makes its money with cars, so the CTO is a car engineer, but
they also need someone to manage the IT, so they have a CIO.

~~~
ddebernardy
To me, the CIO is the person in charge of the IT infrastructure. That is,
making sure computers are working, that the network and the servers are up,
etc. It's a distraction for the CTO, so even in a SaaS business I'd expect to
see someone owning infrastructure sooner or later.

~~~
kthejoker2
A CIO is usually in charge of budget, strategy, planning, and execution of
internal IT initiatives at a company. Priorities and projects, vendors,
licensing, capex/opex, support and maintenance, etc.

A CTO is usually focused on delivering company value through technology. So in
oil and gas this may be drilling tech and seismic imaging software, in retail
it's the mobile app and the in store kiosks, etc.

------
darrmit
I think there’s an element of truth in this - you should fight to stay
relevant and constantly measure yourself against where you want to go.
However, I don’t think tenure is something to avoid, and I certainly don’t
think interviewing three times a year for jobs you have no intention to take
is a good spend of your time or the interviewer’s.

If you’re that concerned about saying relevant, you’d be far better served to
keep up with industry trends and certifications/skill sets/training g/open
source projects.

------
jacques_chester
My argument in reply is that arranging and participating in interviews is
about as fun as remedial dentistry. It's as bad as online dating due to
similar dynamics.

~~~
js8
In analogy with the advice in the article, married people should regularly go
on dates with other people, just to make sure that their value in the
"relationship market" doesn't sink too low (and to avoid unpleasant rebound
after a divorce, which is always a looming possibility).

It doesn't feel quite right, but I cannot entirely put my finger on why. I
guess you could argue that employee-employer relation is like a relationship
with a psychopath, so the above is in some way a "practical" advice. But then
perhaps there is a lot more social issues going with that conclusion
(companies are psychopaths) than just job promotion.

~~~
Hobohodo
I think a better fitting analogy for relationships would be: Married people
should ensure they have independent friendship circles, hobbies etc. to ensure
they don't end up becoming too dependent on each other and unable to function
separately.

I'm not sure how well this maps to the article but have heard this advice
before. Of course, never having been married I can't speak of its efficacy.

~~~
js8
What you mention seems more like (also common) advice to keep your skills
sharp (for example, have a hobby project on Github in a different programming
language) outside your professional job. It is a related but different advice
than to go shopping around on job interviews.

------
sabas123
> Seniority is the number of job opportunities you have, not your current job
> title.

I'm still on the fence on how to feel about this quote, how does the rest feel
about this?

~~~
platoscubicle
It hits home for me but I'm probably the minority. I have a senior title but
I'm a PeopleSoft developer which is kind of becoming an obsolete niche. I
don't really have the skill set to interview for other senior software
development positions.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
Apply anyway, if you want to. Sure, you may get more rejections that way, but
is that bad, other than being a little embarrassing? Also, assuming you're
current job is fine, now is the time to actually be looking for the next thing
when there's no pressure. You can bomb interviews and there's no financial
stake in it for you. I would make a list of places I think make interesting
products and give it shot. You may find that one place that says, "I like this
person, and I think they're smart. I'll give them a shot.'

~~~
platoscubicle
This really inspires me to get out of my comfort zone. You're absolutely
right, I don't have anything to lose. Thanks for the advice, it made my day.

------
fooblat
> Seniority is the number of job opportunities you have, not your current job
> title.

I like the thinking here but in a market with more open roles than qualified
people, I'm not sure how valuable a measure it is.

I would also add that titles themselves are a trap. If your current title is
Software Engineer, hiring companies may offer you a "Senior" title to tip the
scales and get you into a job that is substantially the same as your current
role.

Edit:typos

------
jonyt
"Job interviews help us grow professionally."

I disagree. In most places job interviews mainly test for your ability to pass
job interviews. So if the job title you're going for is interviewee then
maybe. But if you see yourself as a developer then interviewing is not going
to improve your professional abilities.

~~~
whatshisface
Sure, but passing job interviews helps you grow professionally.

~~~
whatever_dude
Passing job interview is a red herring because it teaches you that you said
what people want to hear. It can be very different from being good at your
work and a focus on it can create disfuncional professionals who know how to
give the appearance of being good while being shit at what they do.

~~~
whatshisface
Not to sound excessively cynical, but that can help your career progression
too.

~~~
whatever_dude
For someone who likes to work at bullshit companies, absolutely.

------
setgree
> Job interviews have nothing to do with job seeking. Job interviews help us
> grow professionally.

I infer that this write isn't a native English speaker and I think I get what
they're trying to say. But come on. Obviously they have _something_ to do with
each other.

------
gaius
There are 2 kinds of knowledge, e.g. “knowing python” and “knowing how we do
things at company X”. As you get more senior the second kind takes over - but
it is worthless outside company X. Always keep the first kind of knowledge
sharp.

~~~
yitchelle
No so true. The senior would ask know the answer to "python can be use in this
way to solve x but here are the limitations of that solution, maybe we close
those limitations with Ruby".

~~~
gaius
A true senior isn’t even really thinking in terms of specific languages any
more and if they were their knowledge is a decade old. They have been doing
company-specific things for too long.

Haggling over language minutiae is the hallmark of a junior no matter how many
years experience they have. Especially considering how very, very similar
Python and Ruby are...

------
kailden
I’m not sure a job interview is necessarily a good indicator of a person’s
status/progress any more than a title. It can be just as human and subjective.

I would hope there are other ways to assess your gaps.

------
loukrazy
Sounds like full on imposter syndrome. I feel like a little bit is healthy,
but this is quite a lot.

------
ScottAS
“Stop living in a bubble. Don’t be afraid to attend job interviews. Job
interviews have nothing to do with job seeking.”

Huh? He is advocating to blatantly waste the time of employers? And presumably
lie to them to get the interview?

I honestly don’t know if this is the greatest troll, or worst article, that
I’ve ever seen on HN.

------
profalseidol
Having a job under Capitalism is a Trap.

~~~
someguydave
And when Big Daddy Government keeps you on the dole, but eventually falls?
Life is a Trap - we all die.

~~~
profalseidol
That's because capitalist will keep draining everything, whether it's
deregulation, cutting budgets or "quantitative easing".

We are at an age where there's so much food and shelter surplus that we
shoudn't waste timing writing code for a program that tries to sell crap to
people.

Life can be so much better. We just have to follow what the French are doing
right now. Upgrade the common sense of what should be basic human rights.

------
nrclark
I'm not sure if I'm morally OK with advising people to interview 3 times a
year. It might be good advice for the interviewee, but it wastes a lot of the
interviewer's time (and potentially money).

If I was interviewing a candidate, it would take probably two man-days total
across all the interviewers, HR, etc. So maybe $1500 total plus disrupting
everybody's schedules. Plus maybe another $1000 in travel expenses.

Asking 3 random companies to spend that every year just so I could feel good
about my employability would make me a low-key sociopath.

~~~
dijit
As a person who interviews people.

^ 100% this, actually the cost is probably understated.

I spend 2-3hrs reviewing a candidate's CV/resume before giving the go-ahead to
Recruitment to schedule an interview, then there's the interviews which are
about an hour each.

Then there's the on-site, which is a stage you'd want to get to, even if
you're interviewing to practice.

So, for 3 members of my team it's roughly 3hrs + recruiters time (scheduling
consumes so much time) and they have to negotiate with central HQ what salary
range we can offer a person for their experience/subjective "goodness".

All-in-all I can easily see it taking more than a week of person-power for a
single candidate.

~~~
amdavidson
As a person who also interviews people, it should not take 2-3 hours to read a
resume. If you're spending more than 30 minutes on it, I have no idea what
you're reading.

Spending 3 man-weeks finding the right candidate is an easy win over spending
3 hours finding the wrong one and 12 weeks training, remedying bad behaviors,
and building a case for termination.

~~~
dijit
Maybe I should clarify a few things because people seem to be confused why I
would do this.

1) I'm not just reading your resume, I'm checking any links you've put out
(so, checking GitHub contributions if that's listed). If you're credited in
something then I'm going to check the team size you were in- basically I'm
going to try my best to figure out what questions I would ask you in an
interview. (IE; how do you prefer priorities to be raised, do you prefer to
work alone or with heavy collaboration).

Generally I find it helpful to have targeted questions in meetings, because
meetings are hugely expensive in terms of attention and time. And an interview
is really just a meeting with an external person where the topic is the
background and prowess of the external person.

2) 12 weeks in training is actually more like 6months in my current position.
It's complicated.

3) I live/work in Sweden, probation is 6months, but termination after that is
_basically_ impossible. We had someone who's job was basically not being done
in any way- it took more than a year before we could terminate their
employment. Which is quite expensive if you hire the wrong candidate. (In that
case, we were lax in hiring because that particular position wasn't exactly
senior, and due to that they were able to pass probation because they looked
like they were learning)

Anyway, a cursory glance can be enough to say "yes I want to talk" but an in-
depth review of a CV is something I consider to be mandatory before I actually
hold the interview.

