Re: The "Grey Ceiling"

rrc wrote:

<snip>

I've actually seen productive people get laid off a/o fired because it
didn't make their executives look good. For instance, if a director is
trying to increase his budget, he might like to imply that his team is
understaffed but then you show up and get another person's work done
and then the manager's VP might say that the funding rates are
appropriate for the team.

Exactly. Doing, say, the work of two or three people can be hazardous to one's career. Either one is permanently stuck with that workload or one soon makes a lot of enemies for making everyone else look bad.

Usually, for highly productive individuals,
team building issues are sometimes used to justify a layoff or
termination.

And the only role of HR is to prevent disgruntled employees from suing
the company if they're blackballed by execs.

Where I used to teach, the only reason I ever had to speak with HR was to find out which papers I needed to sign and, once in a while, answer some questions about my benefits.



You have to go above and beyond and then document and prove to management that
you went above and beyond and demand appropriate compensation. Companies want
to pay as little as possible for as long as possible, no matter what your productivity is.


Also, not a good idea. If management hasn't already decided to groom
you for an executive directors slot, via years of brown nosing, then
the chances are that they've already decided what your *rightful lot*
is and want you to be happy there.

And one is pushed in that direction.

So, from that p.o.v., your best bet
is to switch companies as soon as you can document to the headhunters
that you have the proper managerial skills to vie for that unwardly
mobile job in another firm.

The problem is that there's a huge dilemma for highly qualified
individuals; if they don't make VP, they're better off leaving their
job, attending law or medical school, and starting over than in staying
in their aforementioned career past the ages of 35-40. Here's why, if
you're not an executive, then you'll be replaced by a youngster because
your productivity (and leadership abilities) will always make you stand
out against a mainstream corporate culture of cronyism and mediocrity.

There's also the image that this portrays to potential employers. ("He hasn't made VP yet. What's wrong with him?")

A more malleable youngster will help assuage the fears of corporate
cronies and more likely than not, they'll work hard for a chance at a
bonus w/o understanding that the cards are stacked against them.

Hoping that they'll beat the odds.

Also,
don't believe in the myth of everyone becoming a consultant for a
living. Corporations have really done away with freelance contractors,
during various business cycles, so that contractors end up as full time
wage slaves, after a long term in-house project. Medicine and to a
lesser extent law are still professions where the work and compensation
are in the hands of the workers themselves. I think a person who could
run a department, on merit alone (as oppose to an olde boy's clubster),
is qualified to become a doctor or a self-employed (a/o mid-size firm's
partnership) attorney.

.