There are 100s of asshole "Directors" with zero technical background that got hired because of connections in the last few years. Over time, the monkeys listen to all the technical talk and pretend as if they know about the subject. But deep down, they are complete zeros. Almost every one in QCT atleast.
10 replies (most recent on top)
Pay wise it's a lateral move. Director is more of a management promotion as the need arises and has nothing to do with their technical ability. Principal titles should be reserved for the top technical contributors and often as seen as a more prestigious and more difficulty title to get than Director. A Director shouldn't get a Prinicipal title if they aren't technically skilled just as a Principal shouldn't become a Director if they can't manage people properly.
Use Qualnet, search for HR Leveling Chart.
Does anyone know, if the levels are defined anywhere in qualcom wiki? I mean things like
(1) expectations of an employee for each level from technical contribution/knowledge perspective
(2) expectation of an employee performance to be promoted to the next level
(3) guidelines for promotion to each level
It would really be good if Q could define the requirements and expectation of employee performance to move to the next level. This would take away the TOTAL subjective decision when it comes to offering promotion. And this nailing down of expectation would allow employees to genuinely strive for the next level, instead of spending/wasting time sucking up for promotion.
It seems to me that the dirs whose titles have been adjusted to Principal are really nowhere close to being or having the technical knowledge to be deserving of this title. They should have just been laid off.
Principal Engineer in QC USED to be a strictly technical title and only the best technical brains got this title earlier. Since 2010 at least, it has become highly diluted to the point it is now used as a waiting hall for those who are promoted from sr staff but cannot be accomodated as dir due to lack of sufficient line management vacancies. This is another fraud on top of everything else that has been happening there.
It is just wrong. It drove me crazy for years. Director is a line management promotion. Principal Engineer is technical promotion. A lateral mover does not make any sense. If you are removed from director and are no longer managing anyone, then you should be returned to engineer unless you earned the technical title. However, people took offense so the bullshit persisted.
At least they got one thing almost (considering they are not laid off) right.. Quic LA is where there are not only reduntant director roles, also directors that are really horrible with how they interact with their juniors: disrespectful, rude, unapproachable, back stabbing, hold grudges and spews during review periods with unobjective review inputs.
Wow. I know at least 7 directors getting title adjusted.
This happened mostly in Quic.
The 20 people for a Director rule is not enforced across all groups.
@ECm7EeU-A6yy Any idea why not just let them go/layoff instead of playing this dance? I have seen a bunch of them turned to Principal (rightfully, I might add, knowing how bad there interpersonal skill with their interaction with juniors are). Why not just let them go? Just curious why this "transition" period.
It's a lateral move generally taken in the hope that the director gets the clue and leaves. If that doesn't happen, he/she is usually out with 1-2 years on a PIP.