Taking on extra responsibility is all well and good until someone figures out that they can just get you to do more work for the same amount of money. At that point your only option is to move on, because if you stop performing at the "expected" level due to lack of reciprocation, suddenly you have "performance issues".
The second secret to getting promoted is working at a company that's growing.
If you're at a 50 employee company that grows to 250 employees there will be many empty team leader positions. And what you lack in hands-on management experience you make up for in knowledge of the business, its products/processes, and being a reliable known quantity. That extra responsibility will turn into more money fast.
On the other hand, if the company's headcount is largely stable and the employee turnover low? Well, there might not be an empty position until someone a level above you resigns, retires or gets fired. And when that happens - you're probably not the only ambitious person at your level. In this case, the payoff from extra effort is much less certain.
If you're at a larger company, then you'll probably have to line up another to get promoted. Having one foot out the door is often the ammo that managers need to get HR and leadership to approve a promotion.
Of course, we've been told to never accept a counter offer at your job.
You can find a bunch of articles by googling "never accept counter-offer" but they don't provide much in the way of hard data, it's mostly anecdotes.
Some articles say your relationship with your employer is like your relationship with your partner - any indication of looking elsewhere is disloyalty, and will inevitably lead to a break-up down the line if not now. Or it'll put you first in line for lay-offs. Other articles say your employer has a moral duty to pay a 'fair' amount, and if you can get 20% more elsewhere, that shows you should resent your current employer, and leave on principle. Or that threatening to quit and not following through makes you "the boy who cried wolf" and shows a lack of integrity. Or that the fact you were interviewing in the first place shows you weren't satisfied and fulfilled at your current job.
A lot of the articles are written by recruiters. They don't want people to take the counter-offer because it means they miss out on their 20% commission.
Personally I once accepted a counter-offer and it went just fine - in fact, the job offer would have needed an hour-long commute, whereas my job at the time had a 20 minute commute, so I got the extra money without the extra commute. It didn't limit my career or get me laid off or anything.
This was talked about in The Hard Thing about Hard Things by Ben Horowitz, iirc, but from the other side. It advises to not offer a raise to keep an employee planning to leave. This is because the implication is that you were underpaying them before or that you're willing to overpay them now for threatening to quit. This encourages employees to follow suit instead of working towards promo. So pay what you're willing to and don't play that kind of game.
The book/article goes in more depth. I thought it was still online for free but I can't seem to find it.
Sounds to me like it's the employer that should dislike counter-offers, not the employee. This advice is also made through an "employer is always right" lens. Is it really so bad to send a signal to an employee that they were underpaid?
To one employee? No. But other employees will probably find out. Now how will they try to get a raise? By working hard, or getting an offer letter and threatening to leave?
As an individual, if you fully intend to leave, and find your current employer trying to keep you that's a personal decision for sure. For me, I figure if I already put in all the effort to find a better job, I might as well take it. Maybe irrational, but at that point I've already weighed the decision on whether to go. My decisions to leave have usually not been purely about comp but other issues I have with the job.
One anecdata: The one time I accepted a counter-offer (but not for more money), I regretted it.
(I was at place that had an existential problem, and unhappily fighting it. Then, coincidentally, a different company, which had previously made me a tempting offer, checked back in. They made an offer to double my TC, which included a big title jump, to fit their pay grades. I wanted to be loyal to my team, so I went to the appropriate exec at my employer. I said I had an unsolicited offer that I had to decide on immediately, but I would stay if we could solve the problem. Was assured exec understood, and we could tackle the problem. I also asked for the company to do right by a couple other employees, while I had the exec's ear and the moment. Existential problem got worse, and couldn't be solved, for political reasons. Everyone was miserable, and I was out the boost to lifestyle and resume decorations.)
The more usual reasons I know not to mess with counter-offers are that: if the employer wasn't treating you fairly before, that's a problem; you might be flagged as disloyal; they might pay to keep you for temporary convenience, but get rid of you when more convenient for them.
In my experience, I've seen engineers try to take on more work to get promoted, but the key issue is that they were doing more work at their own level instead of focusing on work that would be their responsibility if they promoted. If an IC takes on more and more IC work instead of management responsibilities, it's harder to promote them.
> If an IC takes on more and more IC work instead of management responsibilities, it's harder to promote them.
This is one reason it's critically important for a company to have paths for ICs to take on larger responsibilities that aren't necessarily management responsibilities. Not everyone wants to be a manager, and not everyone is good at being a manager. Some people want to become increasingly senior engineers. (They'll still, ultimately, be responsible for things that involve other people, but that doesn't mean they want to be a people-manager.)
Great point. And I think this is why I love the framing in the OP.
“Do more” is a failure mode and path to burnout. “Do what I’m doing and you’re not doing” is a cue that an ambitious engineer can reflect on constantly.
That's also pointing to a big risk for certain jumps, as everything done in the list for, say, a cross team position means less work on your team. So a manager that isn't all that friendly can use an attempt at promotion as a great excuse for a PIP: I've seen that done around me at least a couple of times.
Yep, as a manager, I am explaining this conundrum often. You can be a rockstar SDE 2 or senior, but not be ready for a promotion because you aren’t leading enough.
If they do that, that's exactly why you don't want to promote them because it is clear they don't understand that doing x+5 work on your own is not as good as x*5 when you become multiplier by helping others.
Except the only way to do x*5 work is by your team hiring extra 5 people for you to manage... or, somewhat uniquely to our industry, through automating your own work.
Also, everyone else hears the same memes about "being a force multiplier" too. When everyone is trying to be a multiplier for the team by helping everyone else on it, the result isn't exponential productivity growth - it's drowning in exponential noise.
Like some other commenters correctly observed, the most significant factor is actually whether the company you're in is stable headcount-wise, or growing fast. In a stable company, promos are a contested resource, which makes the requirements arbitrary - you're graded on an ordinal scale, not a nominal one. In a fast-growing company, promos will happen to you, through no effort on your own - you can coast upwards on seniority alone.
In neither situation, consistently performing at the level above you is a differentiating factor.
Where's the guarantee for recognition of future growth....if they don't recognize past growth?
The biggest gripe I have about articles such as this is that it assumes a static perspective of "now, into the future" and it doesn't account for "all the time before now".
If I'm having a conversation akin to the one that opens the blog post, then presumably I've been at the company for a while. Conversations like that don't just happen between CTO and engineer unless there's some time vested in the company for both.
A CTO saying "take my job" as a non-sequitur is sus, IMHO. Now if it's said in the context of "here's a raise, and if you want another one....try to take my job", well now there's some decent context for the ask and a reason to believe that future growth will be compensated.
The best prediction of future performance is past behavior. That goes for mgmt as well as pee-on.
This, but it's not only about the additional work but often about additional responsibility.
Taking responsibility for decisions that actually fall within your manager's area of responsibility often puts them in a very comfortable position. At least if they trust you and don't question your loyalty, which is exactly what you also try to reassure them if you want a promotion.
However the net effect is that it's a reliable way to get stuck on that rung of the career ladder indefinitely.
Ideally this friction should be viewed as a normal part of career growth. You will have expanded your expertise and are now capable of harder problems and roles, with more compensation in return.
The typical moves are:
[1] Negotiate for more title, compensation at your current role (good outcome)
[2] Leave for a better role (a good outcome)
[3] Stay, no change, doing more work for the same money (not recommended)
>>Taking on extra responsibility is all well and good until someone figures out that they can just get you to do more work for the same amount of money.
Wait a minute. Why are you accepting more work, responsibility without increase in compensation? Promotion de facto means getting paid more.
Otherwise its just some one updating a row in the employee database with fancy text. How does it matter what designation you are called with?
I had a similar situation few years before COVID where a company offered a fancy designation albeit for 50% lesser the pay. All said and done, when I did all the calculations, even with me rapidly changing companies with newly acquired designation, and building from there. It would take more than a decade to merely arrive to the salary I was then. And that would still mean more than a decade of wasted raises, bonuses and RSU vesting at the then current job. By the time that fork got profitable, I'd be due for retirement.
Without a doubt there are toxic work environments and bosses that think the way you’ve stated.
That said my point of view as a manager was to try to hire people who could take my job someday. Those were the people that would make me look good by having a great team. I don’t need to steal their thunder because the higher you go in a healthy organization the more it’s about having people that can execute your strategy then about your individual contributions.
The best analogy for this I see is in the NFL when new, young head coaches seem to be afraid to hire experienced coordinators who have been fired as head coaches because they’re afraid of hiring their replacement if they fail. The thing is those ex head coaches were undoubtedly successful in their previous coordinator roles which is why they got a head coach gig to begin with and are likely the best option for making the new head coach successful.
Long story short it’s up to you to determine which type of leader you’re working for and and take ownership of moving on when in a toxic situation as opposed to a healthy one.
It's not like anyone is forcing the students to participate. If someone of voting age wants to engage someone on policy positions, then they accept the consequences. Likewise, if someone wants to engage with voters, then a college campus is a perfectly legitimate location.
> Existing mitigation approaches often degrade performance on open-ended generation and downstream tasks, limiting their practical utility. [...] Unlike continuous reward schemes, our approach assigns a reward of one only when the model's output is entirely factually correct, and zero otherwise.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, as I'm am on the very edge of this space looking in, but does this mean that they are using a "degraded performance with fewer hallucinations" model to fact check the "more powerful yet prone to hallucinations" model?
My understanding is no, they are collecting a cache of documents from the training set, then after pre-training prompt about those topics. A separate verifier is given both the relevant source documents and generated response, and tasked with checking for conflicts in factuality.
They describe using Qwen 32B as the verifier, and the model under training is Qwen 8B. So in fact the verifier is beefier than the trainee model, though it's unclear if that has to be the case as you scale up.
Also on the edge, but it appears they are relying on the search-augmented identification of conflicts in the generated statement, which is an easier task than constructing an answer to the question. It also encourages abstention because there are no conflicts in “I don’t know” (so “mitigating hallucinations” and “answering more questions correctly” are not necessarily the same thing)
Ironically, I love using em dashes in my writing, but if I ever have to AI generate an email or summary or something, I will remove it for this exact reason.
For a standard globe that you might see in a classroom, the Earth's atmosphere is about as thick as the paper glued to the outside that displays the map.
That didn't sound right to me, and so I checked it as follows:
Estimate for a standard classroom globe at 13" in diameter (I'm seeing a rnage of 12-14 inches as typical). I'm reporting in inches because that is what came up first and most of the globes are for sale in the US. Mixing units here, but, it works out.
But, in meters, the diameter of the Earth is 12,742,000 m on average. if we use the 'Karman line' as defining the edge of what the atmosphere is, that is 100,000 meters. Solving for X ... (13" / 12742000 m)=(X / 100,000 m). gives us an atmosphere thickness of approximately 0.1". -----
Paper glued to the globe would have a thickness of maybe, 0.004" (thin paper) to 0.012" (like a card stock paper).... so that analogy is off by an order of magnitude or more.
Even if you use the mesosphere as the definition for the top of the atmosphere, that is still 85,000 meters and thus similar.
People can check the numbers I used.
* Perhaps the analogy should go more like: the thickness of the cardboard sphere the globe is made out of is about the thickness of the atmosphere. Because, having completely destroyed a globe once in my youth, I remember the cardboard shell being approximately a tenth of an inch thick. But, that's maybe not a great reference for the analogy because not everyone has cut apart a classroom globe....
If I recall correctly... my very first post on Reddit was doing calculations for a (practically immortal) person eating beans and storing the flatus for a trip to the moon (searching shows that this is a not-infrequent request). It was only concerned with quantity - not storage or the engine.
... and the source document for the numbers was based on a paper that is fairly easy to find given the proper keywords in google search... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1648028/ (and I learned that methane more rare in flatus than not).
Did you account for the weight of storage? Because I would think the tyranny of the rocket equation for such a low ISP would cause various levels of impossibility, not to mention the problem of getting enough thrust.
I think the scale was on the hundreds of thousands of years. We're dealing with 700 ml of hydrogen and 70 ml of methane at standard pressures and scaling this up to 90,000 kg of hydrogen and 635,000 kg of kerosene (with the 1:1 methane).
I wonder how standard this globe size is. My mental one is the one we had at home that was about 15" in diameter I'd guess.
Another comment talks about atmosphere being a 1 mm layer on a grapefruit... so definition of atmosphere extents might be different in these two anecdotes.
(edit: I submitted this comment two minutes after another comment did the math on the globe/paper layer version...)
I suspect that they are trying to recreate the experience of bumping into someone they know. Since the destruction of third-spaces, it is increasingly unlikely that you'll serendipitously interact with someone in an unplanned, but welcome, social environment. Leaving your location on for friends and family in this way signals something close to "If you see me, say hi". Whereas announcing "I will be at X for Y time" is a bit more heavy handed. And just knowing that isn't sufficient to actually act on the information, you still have to reach out and plan something unless you are an granular as the actual building you are in, which feels weird. It feels a little intrusive to constantly be announcing my location. Like "Hey! Hey! obk0943t! I'm gonna be in NYC just so you know!" If I just left my location on, then /if/ you care, you can find out. But if you don't, you are not interrupted with the information. Finally, posting leaves a record, whereas location sharing is always "right now". Sure, someone can use that to construct a timeline, but that takes effort on their part (and possibly malice).
The short version is that its in limited supply, it has luxury value (think jewelry or artisan crafting), and its doesn't corrode. So it's a supply and demand issue. There is basically always the same amount, kings want it, and it doesn't ever disappear.
It s superior to currency because while (for example) the US dollar will always have value as long as you pay taxes with it, there is not a limited supply
It is superior to bartering because while (for example) a chicken has value due to its utility as food, it naturally disappears (because you ate it or it died).
Gold and other precious metals sort of sit in the middle ground as the "next best thing" to almost everything that humans want. So it remains a useful means of preserving and communicating value.
reply