Lets say there's a hypothetical situation between and work on a low-visibility team and a very high-visibility team, ads for example. Which one is easier to get promoted on?
My question is basically how are the promo committees set up? On the user-facing team, the impact is much larger, actually generating revenue for the company, but the work is far more challenging. Paradoxically, could this result in a situation where it's harder to get promoted on this team? One could imagine on a less visible team the launch process is much kinder, resulting in a big fish gets promoted in a small pond kind of situation. Or do large companies take this into account when doing promotions?
Any insight into this would be super helpful. Thanks!
In the sessions I’ve been a part of, packets are calibrated with org directors against other packets in the same org. If your work, or the team’s work, was visible across the org then there’s bias in your favor because the impact is easy to identify. If your work wasn’t visible then someone will almost certainly ask “what was the impact here?” and then it’s up to your manager to convince the room of impact.
To be clear, no one at the org level calibrations knows what’s going in ads. All they know is what are the big things that happened in their org this cycle. Even if you happen to work on tools that only HR uses, visibility is still there because that’s all your directors are focused on - just be sure they see your piece of it.