Last year, State Street made an announcement that there are no more inline promotions (internal promotions) for current VPs and AVPs workers. But I still see some people getting promoted. I don't mind people getting promoted but it's I find it unfair for those that don't have the opportunity to get promoted at all.
8 replies (most recent on top)
This is a fake policy and a failed concept. Roles morph and change over time and talent always rises to the top. Now we can’t reward or recognize this talent with a promotion. Oh sure, your manager may string you along with the hope of being able to create a higher level role for that person to apply to (along with anyone else), but in reality that role will never get created. There is always a budget crisis. Your talented employee will have to move on if they want a promotion. This su-ks for managers who foster talent and give increasing responsibility. We don’t have any options to offer for promotions. The HR folks need to recognize that looking at this from a purely academic standpoint with an aim at transparency is flawed. Why on earth would someone want to apply for essentially the job they already have? They can just as easily apply outside the company and probably earn more money (because promotions don’t always come with more $). And then what? You have to start over training a new person and all those years sunk into the other were wasted. It’s disgusting.
All other ranks have an opportunity to get promoted besides AVPs and VPs? The people that made this policy of no internal promotions were obviously out of touch or intending to keep wages low. They suggest we get our own promotions by applying for job openings. The problem is there's no enough job reqs out there for American workers to apply! It's nearly impossible to get our own promotions at State Street.
This no internal promotions policy is horrible for employees that are the best performer in their team and taking on additional responsibilities. We are already NOT recieving raises and bonuses. What's the incentive of going above and beyond? It's almost like the company are encouraging us to be mediocre.
Not sure if this is just US as far as no promotions as I heard an Indian colleague mentioning several people being promoted at various levels.
I had a terrible manager and my entire team was also very very dissatisfied. This person was a md/svp, a long term employee which absolutely baffles me. We lost many on our team, all due to internal movement. And instead of getting real qualified employees, we got a bunch of foreigners that were very uneducated. I am talking basic comprehension & lacking computer skills. When my manager found out I was planning to move elsewhere, this person started tanking my performance. I then reported it to human resources, which I knew would go nowhere but just to have it documented that this manager was a pos. State Street really has internal people issues.
Isn't the whole concept of No Internal Promotions policy by HR is to stop favoritism and to make it fair for other candidates to apply? For example, I'll apply for roles on the same day the job reqs are posted, only for them to be 'filled' within 1-2 weeks. It's suspicious how fast the roles are being filled. I have former colleagues that noticed this as well.
It feels like these job reqs were set up as a workaround for specific individuals and more qualified candidates are not given a chance to be screened, let alone interviewed. Eventually, I find out who landed these ghost roles. I'm surprised that some didn't particularly match the job requirements and I have to pick up the slack. They got the role out of favoritism.
What's the point of VPs and AVPs filling out those stupid quartly performances and showing how hard they work and skills they achieved, if they can't get promoted? It's bad enough that workers are not getting raises and bonuses.
All the promotions are a pantomime.
They publish something where they pretend to set up a formal and rigorous process.
You apply. Usually there have been discussions and promises ahead of tge interview. In the end it is a creepy process, which has nothing to do with meritocracy. It has a lot to do with building your kingdom of locals around you.
There was a time when the company did give people a promotion based on them
learning new skills, taking on new responsibilities.
This was a way to separate them from their coworkers some who lack ambition to
take on new responsibilities
Remember the motto " If you want to get ahead in life you have to get noticed"
Were these promotions due to a position being opened? There are not supposed to be straight out promotions meaning because an individual worked hard and is capable of the next level they do not get promoted.
However if a position opens and someone applies is interviewed they can be hired and promoted to a higher level position.
At least this is the way it is supposed to be.