Categories
Antiwork

When going above and beyond goes wrong

I work in IT for a large corporation. I came into the company about 4 years ago working level 1 IT. The biggest key metrics within our division are ticket count and time to resolution. It's the only real metric that that affects yearly raises, bonuses, and yearly performance review. I have co-workers who are also level 1 IT workers, and are top performers, meaning their ticket count and time to resolution numbers output laps most other people, including myself. I know this because we can filter our numbers through our ticket system, to see how our colleagues are doing. I am not a performer. I never tried to be. I ,meet the average, sometimes below average requirements for the ticket count. I know how many tickets are just enough not to raise an eyebrow, and that's fine with me. If the system was fair, the high performers would have…


I work in IT for a large corporation.

I came into the company about 4 years ago working level 1 IT. The biggest key metrics within our division are ticket count and time to resolution. It's the only real metric that that affects yearly raises, bonuses, and yearly performance review.

I have co-workers who are also level 1 IT workers, and are top performers, meaning their ticket count and time to resolution numbers output laps most other people, including myself. I know this because we can filter our numbers through our ticket system, to see how our colleagues are doing.

I am not a performer. I never tried to be. I ,meet the average, sometimes below average requirements for the ticket count. I know how many tickets are just enough not to raise an eyebrow, and that's fine with me.

If the system was fair, the high performers would have left their positions, and moved up within the corporate ladder to better titles and better pay.

Unfortunately, that's not what happened.

Since the time I've been with the company, I've been promoted once, one time earlier this year to level 2, and was approached again last month for a promotion to level 3. The high performers have not received a promotion since the time they've worked with the company. I came in a few years after them, so they should have moved on by now.

By the time my boss approached with another opportunity, I was putting out my resume and went on several interviews for other companies. I'm fortunate enough to live in a large market where there are more opportunities for employment.

I have no ill will towards my current employer – I do a job, they pay me for it. There's never been a major issue between us.

Since I was searching for other employment, I wanted to see if he would be willing to give one of our top performers this opportunity. It would help the company keep good relations with a long-standing employee, and it would help out the high performer feel like he was being recognized for his efforts.

After my boss approached me with this offer, I said, “hey, thank you for the consideration, but Bob would be a great fit for this. I know he's dying to get out of Level 1. He's probably your hardest worker, incredibly intelligent guy, he would kill it at this position.” Bob and I don't live in the same area, but the 3rd level position is a remote position – any of our IT guys can do it.

The feedback I received was “yes, Bob is great. But I can't afford to lose him at level 1.”

Bob is a victim of his own success.

He's now too good to lose to another level. Now we're no longer talking about the capitalistic ideals that the top performers should get the best opportunities. We're now talking about opportunities based on logistical convenience.

Now you might say “if Bob was really that good, he would have jumped ship by now and found himself a better opportunity in a better company that recognizes his talents.”

And that would be fair. Except, in this case, Bob lives in a small market area. The site he supports is in an area that is prime for manufacturing businesses due to low cost of land and tax incentives for “job creation”.

Bob knows this. It's why he works so hard – he can't afford to lose his job, as job opportunities around him are very slim.

More importantly, the company knows this. It's why they dictate Bob's career path. They know he has very little opportunity to go elsewhere. Not only would it be difficult to replace his productivity in level 1, but it would be difficult to replace him in his current role as there are not may qualified IT candidates in his area.

“Well, Bob should just pick himself up by his bootstraps, move to a larger market with more job opportunities and get compensated for his real worth.”

Yes, Bob could do that.

Bob could sell the $150k home he just purchase with his new wife 2 years ago, at a time where interest rates were at its lowest. Bob could uproot himself and his family, roll the dice and move to a larger market, relying on his meager low-market savings to sustain himself in a big city where the cost of living would negate the pay bump he would receive for making the move.

Or… hear me out…

…the company could just compensate Bob for his productivity, and promote him. You know, the “opportunity for growth” that is pitched by the employer at every job interview since the beginning of time.

The cake is a lie.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *