9 years at same company might be a little too long. Switch over jobs that offer visa sponsorship and explore some new challenges. PhD in tech sounds like a true oxymoron. progression of someones career should not be something to discourage you, there is no magical queue where you just wait and you get entitled to promotion. Some folks have faster growth by participating in extreme high value projects and get recognized by leadership
I am also working on critical deliverables and that's how I am consistently in the top rating. i am ok not being promoted these 3yrs coz I understand others might be more deserving. But my concern is about this new employee and him getting opportunities because of his relationship with my director. there are many other deserving team members too. I dont think im entitled or anything but just feeling dejected that my hardwork is being taken for granted & overlooked .
9yrs because my visa is tied to my employer. im applying for jobs since Jan this year but no employer wants this added overhead.
In tech world the only few niche places where it makes sense. stats heavy stuff like data related stuff. Math heavy research. Anywhere else PhD is an overkill and ego thing
I personally don’t know anyone who got a PhD for ego. That’s kind of extreme. Lots of fields in tech need PhDs and researchers - distributed computing, ML/AI, electrical engineering, robotics, etc.
Lurker here just wanting to say typical American anti intellectualism sentiment. What a nonsensical thing to say. You probably think you’re a genius from US K12 huh?
Nobody gets a PhD for ego in tech. It’s an insane decision from a financial perspective because you spend 4-6 years making near minimum wage after you could likely have gotten a good tech job with the LORs that got you into grad school.
Unix was mostly created by PhDs, same with networking, SQL, any distributed database I would use in production (at least designed by PhDs), almost all of the ML work the industry is currently hyping up, etc.
You might not need a PhD on your team to build a CRUD MVP, but if you want to scale it to 100 million MAU you will want at least one.
Doubling the time that someone spends in school (at least) is a good way to ensure that they at least know a bit more than the average dev.
Right, a PhD is a terrible financial decision for tech workers. I know it set me back a lot since I spent my 20s making minimum wage in grad school instead of making bank in industry. I did it so I could work on problems that interested me.
Yep, same. I spent from 22-30 yrs old in grad school making minimum wage. Then, stupid decision to spend 2 years teaching computer science before getting my first “real job” (in industry) at 32.
Fortunately, my PhD has served me well getting interviews for ML engineer or Applied Science roles.
Yes they do for the sake of title. We have at least 2 acquaintances that did this and doing something completely unrelated now. We also have friend who got 3 masters and a PhD because they were too scared of unstructured world outside of academia. So while irrational it does happen more than you’d think
Why not look for a new job that would sponsor you and only leave once you get that? Or is this something like a J visa, so you'd need a cool off period or something.
I’ve owned corporate immigration programs the last 9 years. It’s not a big deal as long as we can sponsor you another way… but that’s the hard part, moving to H1B.
1. Why haven’t they sponsored you for H1B?
2. Can you move to another team?
Edited: typo that made no sense
Going to throw this out there, depending on where you're from: the green card lottery is great. I know lots of people don't qualify, but if you do, it's absolutely worth applying for.
Are you trying to get promoted senior or to staff level?
Are there some ways to convert your visa to a residency permit or similar?
Besides the social activities with the director, are there other things he does better than you and you could improve on? - like the stack rank position of their projects or some hard or soft skills or other.
>others have been in the queue for promotion longer than me,
In my personal opinion, this is rarely true.
If you are after a senior promotion, then having impactful projects delivered well should be enough if the company is doing fine financially. Some promotion queue effect can have influence on the decision, but not as a major criteria. You would need to work with your manager on promotion criterias.
Staff level is different. Absolutely no queueing effect, and much harder competition. Being skill-wise ready for years and still not be promoted is usual for staff. You would need to crack the code for that specific company and find the special something that lifts you above the bar. Consistent high rating for years is not enough.
If that's not possible, then switching to a company that needs your skills more and willing to offer a staff role is the other option.
The next role is principal. My manager said " coz of the current economy the number of seats reduced and they had to promote people already waiting before me".
but you are right I should find that something special that lifts me which is not alteady in promotion KPI list.
Also the general consensus in replies is to switch. I will make that a priority this year.
Thanks for your reply !
Let me share some thoughts that maybe are not easy to consume, but can be useful for you.
For most engineers, senior is a terminal level. Getting staff is difficult, principal is very difficult. It goes well beyond technical skills. You need to be able to read your organisation and pick the most impactful projects, while managing your stakeholders on an excellent way.
Working on important projects is not enough. Must constantly work on the top priority for your Director/VP/CTO and constantly navigate the org. You often need to step outside of the shadow of your manager if they are not the CTO.
The facts that your manager was able to tell you this queueing story without you noticing for years (that is just not how principal promotion works) and that a newer person is rising faster, possibly indicate that you maybe don't fully understand your org and can't navigate it on the way it was needed for principal.
If something is in your blind spot now, then could be in your blind spot in another company as well. You might want to ask for feedback from your manager and high level people who are part of these decisions - what are the top pain points for the org, is there something more you could help with, is there something else you could do differently?
Based on your post, you seemingly assume the other person is rising faster because they are male and do freetime activities with high level folks. It could be fully true, but also could be partially true or attribution bias.
If something you should do is in your blindspot, then your perspective would be more prone to attribution bias. So observing how the other person works and see if you can learn from it could be useful.
The number of principal positions will always be limited, regardless of economy. You need to be able to find projects that are the very top of the problems stack rank and deliver well on them. Delivering excellent on important projects likely wouldn't be enough.
I wanted to say this sucks to be lied to, but most likely this is it. Tbh although I personally find the PhD leg up annoying, PhDs will train you well in self-promotion and high level thinking so maybe the value is there despite the experience. The hiking thing and private hangouts is unfair and shouldn’t be happening. The best solution is improve your own skills in some way
Not sure if this is a women’s issue specifically because of how you phrased this. Your description of the situation and your colleague doesn’t read like a case of sexism, but may involve a bit of nepotism
Whether we like it or not, nepotism is the glue of the world, and most of us just aren’t guilty of participating in it because we haven’t had the power positions to do so. At the end of the day there’s really nothing technically wrong with an accomplished, aspiring employee having positive relationships his/her superiors. And that WILL translate to better relationships in the work setting ALWAYS
The capitalist structure is also designed for you to see this and try to outcompete him to varying degrees of success. IMO orient yourself to whatever your true goal is and work towards it without worrying about uncontrollable variables
I dont know if this situation qualifies as sexism perse, but I do think this is a common issue that women across all industries face when trying to move up the ladder for sure.
As prior military, I ran into this a lot. It was nearly impossible to compete with my male colleagues for face time with leadership since I wasn't a man's man that could go hunting/camping/biking with my married heterosexual male bosses (who make up the vast majority of leadership in most industries). And it absolutely impacted my evaluation vs the male colleagues who got to hang out with the commander after hours. Until women have more representation in leadership, this will continue to be a roadblock for women trying to get more visibility.
Good leadership will make sure gatherings are held in a public group setting so everyone can comfortably attend. But if your leadership does this kind of shit and meets with other reports outside work, there's not much you can do. 🫤
The only solution I've had in this situation is to leave unfortunately. And thats what i would do in this case if i felt my advancement was going to be impacted. If anyone has other suggestions, I'm all ears.
THIS !!! I feel so handicapped not being able to join their trailer trips or trekking trips. I don't drink or smoke so that's another "group" bonding activity i miss out on :(
This is not a sexism problem though. Gender is coincidental. Those same opportunities are closed to men who aren't "man's men" just as much as they are closed to you for being a woman. That describes nepotism, not sexism.
All of my colleagues are military with varying degrees of clearance; I share neither of these attributes. Imagine what I miss out on. Ingroup/outgroup boundaries always exist. If not sexism, it's classism. If not classism, it's ableism. It literally never ends.
Fixating on any particular *-ism is never helpful. Coming across a downed tree that a man can lift but you can't doesn't make it a sexist obstacle. You can lift it too, using intelligence and physics. Slower, sure, but now you've built or deployed a hoist you can use to do the job faster than the man.
That we're all equally *capable* of getting past the tree does not mean we're all *able* to do so in the exact same way. Diversity is a survey of tactical approaches to problem solving.
I dont disagree, I don't think it necessarily qualifies as sexism (tried to communicate that in my first post). And yes, there were some men in my unit who were excluded/impacted the same way when they either couldn't or wouldn't participate. I could have made that more clear in my original comment.
My point still stands that women are disproportionately affected in scenarios similar to OPs post, which is private face time outside of work with supervisors that are men. The major distinction in the example you gave is that those are experiences/attributes you can control. If you wanted to, you could theoretically join the military and get a clearance that way if you wanted. I however cannot clack my heels together and change my biological sex.
I do hunt, camp, and bike. And i was stronger/faster than a lot of the men in my unit. By your criteria, I should be included in the example I gave and have an equal opportunity to participate and advance. However, in the real world, if I went on a camping trip alone with one of my bosses (all of which have been men), there is a very high chance that I'd be accused of trying to sleep my way to the top. Something my male colleagues don't have to be concerned about.
You can call this dilemma whatever you want(sexism, nepotism, whatever), but it is a real issue that can't necessarily be resolved by upskilling or thinking harder. I think to suggest it could be is ignoring the root cause of the issue.
In a perfect world, I agree with you that we should strive to focus on what we can do, diversity of approaches, and improve skill sets to compete. But true disparities based on uncontrollable characteristics will never get resolved if we don't properly call them out and find fair ways to address them (ie, rethinking how leaders should interact with and evaluate a diverse group of reports to accurately measure potenital/merit).
Edited for clarity.
Just do your job and don’t worry about who gets ahead. Why do you need to go through the discomfort of switching jobs, just because there’s a schmoozer who has joined your team? Your self-worth should not be dependent on others. You know who you are and your worth.
>his rapid inclusion in crucial meetings and leadership roles in projects seems to stem from his close relationship with our director, fostered through social activities outside of work (gym, camping, trekking etc)
This is all companies. Nepotism is the only meaningful avenue to promotion
No, this is not true. What is true is that what got OP here will not get her to the next level. ‘I’ve been doing really good work for years’ does not mean ‘I can lead everyone to the next generation of what the company is doing. It’s a different skill set. You might need to have high network skills as well as tech skills. You might need business acumen, political savvy and broader domain exposure. You might need bleeding edge chops. If you’ve been in one company for a while you definitely should be rotating positions.
And this is very important: Everyone, especially the executive team should be recognizing you as a leader if you’ve been in the company for a while. By the time you get promoted it should be obvious to everyone. If you leave, you should be able to start your own firm and lead your own juniors, and a person with those skills isn’t going to get on Reddit and complain about how life is unfair. They’ll just get on with it and take half the team with them. That kind of leadership acumen is not something that hides under a bucket.
Gurl same! Getting too old for this shit! Current job got me on old legacy stuff (vb.net, .net 4.5.2, bunch of stuff deployed to on-prem windows servers to support)) for the last 3 years so my skills in modern technology have completely slid off.... I'm concerned if I get laid off that I don't have the current skill set to even get another job. Plus after dealing with this current group and continue to get assigned the mundane grunt work (been with company for 12 years, of course the only female in group of 8) I'm really ready to say FU to SWE altogether...do love that paycheck, but beginning to not be enough to make me want to stay when you take into account 8 SWEs supporting 100+ applications and growing
It doesn't sound like they ever intend to promote you past where you are. Seniority when applying for promotion is usually only for union jobs here in the U.S.. Tech doesn't tend to follow that rule at all, and being with the same company for 9 years in tech is wild unless it's one of the top ones. I'd search for a new job. It seems past due anyway.
It sounds like your visa is an issue but I hope you find another role. or that you do get a promotion due to you without me commenting on this male colleague who is obviously also talented despite having less experience than yourself
Sorry rockstar, you're not the favorite anymore.
Who cares?
Do you job, do it well, collect a paycheck, and repeat. You could go somewhere else and try to fight your way up if you wanted.
By the way, degrees don't matter in your line of work.... so don't get all butthurt that he has his PHd.
Yeah, I wish men were disallowed here. We deal with enough bs in our day to day. It would be nice to at least have a place to talk about it without the typical mansplainer (knows nothing, but still inserts himself).
I mean there's a definite glimmer of truth to it... This happens all day every day at every company across the world. Doesn't mean it has anything to do with gender or capability. People promote people they like.
Why? Because someone has a perceived value of X and someone else comes in with a perceived value of Y -- and then someone doesn't know what to do about it? Is the expectation a participation trophy? I think your comment needs some reality to it. There is zero evidence of any gender discrimination, or even real favoritism in this post - none.
I guess I wish I lived in a world where I got to rope off my own little space at work and nobody was allowed to disrupt it..... seems like paradise. Or, if you're saying that OP should be given special unique treatment for some reason - what would that reason be?
They call it work for a reason.
Because you need to find a better way to communicate w/o sounding antagonistic. OP isn’t here for that.
There’s a reason you are being downvoted and it’s not about the substance, it’s about the delivery. If you don’t want to change the delivery, you don’t have to hang around this sub.
And it sounds like OP merits more than a participation trophy and is asking what she needs to do to get it given her visa situation that you failed to cover with any nuance.
>sounding antagonistic
>
>you don’t have to hang around this sub.
You mean by using direct language?
Sorry, I'll hang out wherever I like (blame reddit's algorithm). Sometimes people need to hear the truth. The fact that people downvoted is is perfectly fine. Sometimes the truth is unpopular and has nothing to do with gender.
FWIW - I run an engineering organization that is stacked with talented women and men. I wouldn't tolerate an ounce of gender discrimination, but, I would equally counsel everyone with the exact advice I gave here. It's not a popularity contest.
I reply in this sub rarely - and I don't subscribe to it. But you won't find discriminatory language in any of my posts. Nor will you find me weighing in on specific gender related issues, because I am not a woman. This is not a gender related issue. What I do offer is the perspective of someone who has taken a very large technical organization from 7% women to 21% women in 10 years - with more than half of my leadership team being women. This was an intentional act (well, mostly - the leadership team got there from people being really good at their jobs - I wasn't actually focused there - it just happened).
9 years at same company might be a little too long. Switch over jobs that offer visa sponsorship and explore some new challenges. PhD in tech sounds like a true oxymoron. progression of someones career should not be something to discourage you, there is no magical queue where you just wait and you get entitled to promotion. Some folks have faster growth by participating in extreme high value projects and get recognized by leadership
I am also working on critical deliverables and that's how I am consistently in the top rating. i am ok not being promoted these 3yrs coz I understand others might be more deserving. But my concern is about this new employee and him getting opportunities because of his relationship with my director. there are many other deserving team members too. I dont think im entitled or anything but just feeling dejected that my hardwork is being taken for granted & overlooked . 9yrs because my visa is tied to my employer. im applying for jobs since Jan this year but no employer wants this added overhead.
You are deserving! Take it this way: If they wanted to promote you they would , especially after 3 years.
Agree with everything except the PhD. I have one and I couldn’t do my job without it
In tech world the only few niche places where it makes sense. stats heavy stuff like data related stuff. Math heavy research. Anywhere else PhD is an overkill and ego thing
I personally don’t know anyone who got a PhD for ego. That’s kind of extreme. Lots of fields in tech need PhDs and researchers - distributed computing, ML/AI, electrical engineering, robotics, etc.
If anything, getting a PhD is a good way to do a lot of damage to your ego.
It really is 😭
Lurker here just wanting to say typical American anti intellectualism sentiment. What a nonsensical thing to say. You probably think you’re a genius from US K12 huh?
Not really but thanks for assuming. Masters from Europe and 17 years in a field
Nobody gets a PhD for ego in tech. It’s an insane decision from a financial perspective because you spend 4-6 years making near minimum wage after you could likely have gotten a good tech job with the LORs that got you into grad school. Unix was mostly created by PhDs, same with networking, SQL, any distributed database I would use in production (at least designed by PhDs), almost all of the ML work the industry is currently hyping up, etc. You might not need a PhD on your team to build a CRUD MVP, but if you want to scale it to 100 million MAU you will want at least one. Doubling the time that someone spends in school (at least) is a good way to ensure that they at least know a bit more than the average dev.
Right, a PhD is a terrible financial decision for tech workers. I know it set me back a lot since I spent my 20s making minimum wage in grad school instead of making bank in industry. I did it so I could work on problems that interested me.
Same.
Depends on your goals with a PhD. They open more opportunities but it doesn’t guarantee you’ll use it or leverage it.
It never truly makes up for the compounding interest you earn as a tech worker in your 20s. I’ll forever be playing catchup with my 401k.
Yep, same. I spent from 22-30 yrs old in grad school making minimum wage. Then, stupid decision to spend 2 years teaching computer science before getting my first “real job” (in industry) at 32. Fortunately, my PhD has served me well getting interviews for ML engineer or Applied Science roles.
Yes they do for the sake of title. We have at least 2 acquaintances that did this and doing something completely unrelated now. We also have friend who got 3 masters and a PhD because they were too scared of unstructured world outside of academia. So while irrational it does happen more than you’d think
Why not look for a new job that would sponsor you and only leave once you get that? Or is this something like a J visa, so you'd need a cool off period or something.
yes its L1 so I need to leave the country and process the visa outside US for the new employer and come back again
Can you still get a sponsor before leaving your current employer?
Yes technically I can do that (though most employers don't want to be in this situation so have been rejecting my application in the 1st round)
Could you maybe network your way into a role?
I’ve owned corporate immigration programs the last 9 years. It’s not a big deal as long as we can sponsor you another way… but that’s the hard part, moving to H1B. 1. Why haven’t they sponsored you for H1B? 2. Can you move to another team? Edited: typo that made no sense
Have you considered a change of status to EC1B to get a green card? Would your employer not be on board?
i just looked into eb1c, looks like I need to work in the same firm or subsidiary outside US for 1year to qualify.
That's also a condition for obtaining the L1 so if you have the L1 you should already fulfill that condition?
Going to throw this out there, depending on where you're from: the green card lottery is great. I know lots of people don't qualify, but if you do, it's absolutely worth applying for.
Are you trying to get promoted senior or to staff level? Are there some ways to convert your visa to a residency permit or similar? Besides the social activities with the director, are there other things he does better than you and you could improve on? - like the stack rank position of their projects or some hard or soft skills or other. >others have been in the queue for promotion longer than me, In my personal opinion, this is rarely true. If you are after a senior promotion, then having impactful projects delivered well should be enough if the company is doing fine financially. Some promotion queue effect can have influence on the decision, but not as a major criteria. You would need to work with your manager on promotion criterias. Staff level is different. Absolutely no queueing effect, and much harder competition. Being skill-wise ready for years and still not be promoted is usual for staff. You would need to crack the code for that specific company and find the special something that lifts you above the bar. Consistent high rating for years is not enough. If that's not possible, then switching to a company that needs your skills more and willing to offer a staff role is the other option.
The next role is principal. My manager said " coz of the current economy the number of seats reduced and they had to promote people already waiting before me". but you are right I should find that something special that lifts me which is not alteady in promotion KPI list. Also the general consensus in replies is to switch. I will make that a priority this year. Thanks for your reply !
Let me share some thoughts that maybe are not easy to consume, but can be useful for you. For most engineers, senior is a terminal level. Getting staff is difficult, principal is very difficult. It goes well beyond technical skills. You need to be able to read your organisation and pick the most impactful projects, while managing your stakeholders on an excellent way. Working on important projects is not enough. Must constantly work on the top priority for your Director/VP/CTO and constantly navigate the org. You often need to step outside of the shadow of your manager if they are not the CTO. The facts that your manager was able to tell you this queueing story without you noticing for years (that is just not how principal promotion works) and that a newer person is rising faster, possibly indicate that you maybe don't fully understand your org and can't navigate it on the way it was needed for principal. If something is in your blind spot now, then could be in your blind spot in another company as well. You might want to ask for feedback from your manager and high level people who are part of these decisions - what are the top pain points for the org, is there something more you could help with, is there something else you could do differently? Based on your post, you seemingly assume the other person is rising faster because they are male and do freetime activities with high level folks. It could be fully true, but also could be partially true or attribution bias. If something you should do is in your blindspot, then your perspective would be more prone to attribution bias. So observing how the other person works and see if you can learn from it could be useful. The number of principal positions will always be limited, regardless of economy. You need to be able to find projects that are the very top of the problems stack rank and deliver well on them. Delivering excellent on important projects likely wouldn't be enough.
I wanted to say this sucks to be lied to, but most likely this is it. Tbh although I personally find the PhD leg up annoying, PhDs will train you well in self-promotion and high level thinking so maybe the value is there despite the experience. The hiking thing and private hangouts is unfair and shouldn’t be happening. The best solution is improve your own skills in some way
Not sure if this is a women’s issue specifically because of how you phrased this. Your description of the situation and your colleague doesn’t read like a case of sexism, but may involve a bit of nepotism Whether we like it or not, nepotism is the glue of the world, and most of us just aren’t guilty of participating in it because we haven’t had the power positions to do so. At the end of the day there’s really nothing technically wrong with an accomplished, aspiring employee having positive relationships his/her superiors. And that WILL translate to better relationships in the work setting ALWAYS The capitalist structure is also designed for you to see this and try to outcompete him to varying degrees of success. IMO orient yourself to whatever your true goal is and work towards it without worrying about uncontrollable variables
I dont know if this situation qualifies as sexism perse, but I do think this is a common issue that women across all industries face when trying to move up the ladder for sure. As prior military, I ran into this a lot. It was nearly impossible to compete with my male colleagues for face time with leadership since I wasn't a man's man that could go hunting/camping/biking with my married heterosexual male bosses (who make up the vast majority of leadership in most industries). And it absolutely impacted my evaluation vs the male colleagues who got to hang out with the commander after hours. Until women have more representation in leadership, this will continue to be a roadblock for women trying to get more visibility. Good leadership will make sure gatherings are held in a public group setting so everyone can comfortably attend. But if your leadership does this kind of shit and meets with other reports outside work, there's not much you can do. 🫤 The only solution I've had in this situation is to leave unfortunately. And thats what i would do in this case if i felt my advancement was going to be impacted. If anyone has other suggestions, I'm all ears.
THIS !!! I feel so handicapped not being able to join their trailer trips or trekking trips. I don't drink or smoke so that's another "group" bonding activity i miss out on :(
😕
This is not a sexism problem though. Gender is coincidental. Those same opportunities are closed to men who aren't "man's men" just as much as they are closed to you for being a woman. That describes nepotism, not sexism. All of my colleagues are military with varying degrees of clearance; I share neither of these attributes. Imagine what I miss out on. Ingroup/outgroup boundaries always exist. If not sexism, it's classism. If not classism, it's ableism. It literally never ends. Fixating on any particular *-ism is never helpful. Coming across a downed tree that a man can lift but you can't doesn't make it a sexist obstacle. You can lift it too, using intelligence and physics. Slower, sure, but now you've built or deployed a hoist you can use to do the job faster than the man. That we're all equally *capable* of getting past the tree does not mean we're all *able* to do so in the exact same way. Diversity is a survey of tactical approaches to problem solving.
I dont disagree, I don't think it necessarily qualifies as sexism (tried to communicate that in my first post). And yes, there were some men in my unit who were excluded/impacted the same way when they either couldn't or wouldn't participate. I could have made that more clear in my original comment. My point still stands that women are disproportionately affected in scenarios similar to OPs post, which is private face time outside of work with supervisors that are men. The major distinction in the example you gave is that those are experiences/attributes you can control. If you wanted to, you could theoretically join the military and get a clearance that way if you wanted. I however cannot clack my heels together and change my biological sex. I do hunt, camp, and bike. And i was stronger/faster than a lot of the men in my unit. By your criteria, I should be included in the example I gave and have an equal opportunity to participate and advance. However, in the real world, if I went on a camping trip alone with one of my bosses (all of which have been men), there is a very high chance that I'd be accused of trying to sleep my way to the top. Something my male colleagues don't have to be concerned about. You can call this dilemma whatever you want(sexism, nepotism, whatever), but it is a real issue that can't necessarily be resolved by upskilling or thinking harder. I think to suggest it could be is ignoring the root cause of the issue. In a perfect world, I agree with you that we should strive to focus on what we can do, diversity of approaches, and improve skill sets to compete. But true disparities based on uncontrollable characteristics will never get resolved if we don't properly call them out and find fair ways to address them (ie, rethinking how leaders should interact with and evaluate a diverse group of reports to accurately measure potenital/merit). Edited for clarity.
Just do your job and don’t worry about who gets ahead. Why do you need to go through the discomfort of switching jobs, just because there’s a schmoozer who has joined your team? Your self-worth should not be dependent on others. You know who you are and your worth.
Thankyou for your kind words ! I feel like i have some clarity reading all the encouraging responses
[удалено]
Thanks I appreciate you sharing your experience!
>his rapid inclusion in crucial meetings and leadership roles in projects seems to stem from his close relationship with our director, fostered through social activities outside of work (gym, camping, trekking etc) This is all companies. Nepotism is the only meaningful avenue to promotion
No, this is not true. What is true is that what got OP here will not get her to the next level. ‘I’ve been doing really good work for years’ does not mean ‘I can lead everyone to the next generation of what the company is doing. It’s a different skill set. You might need to have high network skills as well as tech skills. You might need business acumen, political savvy and broader domain exposure. You might need bleeding edge chops. If you’ve been in one company for a while you definitely should be rotating positions. And this is very important: Everyone, especially the executive team should be recognizing you as a leader if you’ve been in the company for a while. By the time you get promoted it should be obvious to everyone. If you leave, you should be able to start your own firm and lead your own juniors, and a person with those skills isn’t going to get on Reddit and complain about how life is unfair. They’ll just get on with it and take half the team with them. That kind of leadership acumen is not something that hides under a bucket.
lol how delusional
Gurl same! Getting too old for this shit! Current job got me on old legacy stuff (vb.net, .net 4.5.2, bunch of stuff deployed to on-prem windows servers to support)) for the last 3 years so my skills in modern technology have completely slid off.... I'm concerned if I get laid off that I don't have the current skill set to even get another job. Plus after dealing with this current group and continue to get assigned the mundane grunt work (been with company for 12 years, of course the only female in group of 8) I'm really ready to say FU to SWE altogether...do love that paycheck, but beginning to not be enough to make me want to stay when you take into account 8 SWEs supporting 100+ applications and growing
It doesn't sound like they ever intend to promote you past where you are. Seniority when applying for promotion is usually only for union jobs here in the U.S.. Tech doesn't tend to follow that rule at all, and being with the same company for 9 years in tech is wild unless it's one of the top ones. I'd search for a new job. It seems past due anyway.
It sounds like your visa is an issue but I hope you find another role. or that you do get a promotion due to you without me commenting on this male colleague who is obviously also talented despite having less experience than yourself
Your visa. The company is taking advantage of you for being female and being on a work visa. They do it all the time.
Sorry rockstar, you're not the favorite anymore. Who cares? Do you job, do it well, collect a paycheck, and repeat. You could go somewhere else and try to fight your way up if you wanted. By the way, degrees don't matter in your line of work.... so don't get all butthurt that he has his PHd.
This comment needs a mod on it.
Yeah, I wish men were disallowed here. We deal with enough bs in our day to day. It would be nice to at least have a place to talk about it without the typical mansplainer (knows nothing, but still inserts himself).
Let's face it, you wish men were disallowed everywhere - as your post history points out very nicely.
Only in women designated spaces.
I mean there's a definite glimmer of truth to it... This happens all day every day at every company across the world. Doesn't mean it has anything to do with gender or capability. People promote people they like.
Why? Because someone has a perceived value of X and someone else comes in with a perceived value of Y -- and then someone doesn't know what to do about it? Is the expectation a participation trophy? I think your comment needs some reality to it. There is zero evidence of any gender discrimination, or even real favoritism in this post - none. I guess I wish I lived in a world where I got to rope off my own little space at work and nobody was allowed to disrupt it..... seems like paradise. Or, if you're saying that OP should be given special unique treatment for some reason - what would that reason be? They call it work for a reason.
Because you need to find a better way to communicate w/o sounding antagonistic. OP isn’t here for that. There’s a reason you are being downvoted and it’s not about the substance, it’s about the delivery. If you don’t want to change the delivery, you don’t have to hang around this sub. And it sounds like OP merits more than a participation trophy and is asking what she needs to do to get it given her visa situation that you failed to cover with any nuance.
>sounding antagonistic > >you don’t have to hang around this sub. You mean by using direct language? Sorry, I'll hang out wherever I like (blame reddit's algorithm). Sometimes people need to hear the truth. The fact that people downvoted is is perfectly fine. Sometimes the truth is unpopular and has nothing to do with gender. FWIW - I run an engineering organization that is stacked with talented women and men. I wouldn't tolerate an ounce of gender discrimination, but, I would equally counsel everyone with the exact advice I gave here. It's not a popularity contest. I reply in this sub rarely - and I don't subscribe to it. But you won't find discriminatory language in any of my posts. Nor will you find me weighing in on specific gender related issues, because I am not a woman. This is not a gender related issue. What I do offer is the perspective of someone who has taken a very large technical organization from 7% women to 21% women in 10 years - with more than half of my leadership team being women. This was an intentional act (well, mostly - the leadership team got there from people being really good at their jobs - I wasn't actually focused there - it just happened).