Associate, Advanced, Expert, Principal etc. ?
15 replies (most recent on top)
Basically mid career people are fu---d because there's no where to advance to until the Olds retire. And then the executive outside hires are clogging up the advancement pipeline even more so the hipo exxon people don't have anywhere to go
I wouldn't pay to much to the assigned job role until after the HyperCare period (90 days after Go Live). There are corrections that need to be processed by the Business Lines, and some groups need a lot more work than others. The algorithm used at Go Live is not 100% correct at Go Live
The intent is the job role with associated tier (associate, advanced, expert, etc) should reflect the intent of the organizational design, and NOT the proficiency of the current person in that position. There might be someone who is still developing that will progress to meet those expected observables, and others who are well exceeding the expected observables for that job role.
Maybe not the answer folks on here want, and I'm still figuring it out too. But what the system is showing some universal job that you were assigned, but your actual position didn't change. So an advisor can still refer to themselves as an advisor. (You still have to figure out what they do, good luck with that.) And managers of the same level might have different titles in the system, but they are still at the same level. Only tie to CL I've found is execs.
It's all a shell game to provide cover for the lowered potentials and lowered salary bands.
The new job role titles are not supposed to be tied to your CL, as per the new training. There are some Principals shifting to Enginer Expert, so maybe that could be perceived as a demotion. But those Principal roles are supposed to be lifetime appointments.
Pretty sure the titles are linked to CL
@at we wait with bated breath
"Associate" is better than "Dead Weight", which is what I got.
I'm over 55, of course.
What are the implications? is this related to compensation? maybe not directly but as a part for our career progression?
The role assignments seem detached from reality. There is a data scientist in BTC with an expert role. According to it, he should be coaching junior data scientists worldwide. Instead we, with an advanced role, were instructed to mentor and coach him.
I’m not exactly sure what I am. I’ll find out and report back if there was any change.
I will be honest. Being moved from “Advanced” to “Associate” is a step backward that does not reflect the experience, skills, or track record I’ve built over many years. These titles were previously assigned by supervisors who directly observed my work, which makes this reclassification difficult to reconcile with the work being done and very demotivating. I’ve consistently been the person relied upon to resolve complex issues and ensure work gets completed when others cannot. I’m so exhausted and frankly tired of proving myself. If they want to relabel me now as “Associate,” so be it. The next time they have a problem, I will just defer to my so-called “advanced” colleagues for a solution. I'm done over extending myself.
I was demoted while others who do much less were promoted. Why? Who made the decision? What was the criteria? It used to be based on skills assessment which the supervisor approved.
I look at the role I was assigned and then at roles that my former peers were assigned and am confused. We used to do the same job at the same level, how is one assigned a higher role higher than the other? What are the category criteria? If this is truly a meritocracy then age/yee shouldn't have anything to do with the assessment. It should be on business results only.
Can anyone explain how the assessment was done? Not saying that I disagree at this point but some clarity into the process would be helpful for people to understand the results.
Advisor to analyst
How do you look up your role?