Oh my life. This was me 14 months ago, but with some slight differences in details. Essentially, a man - actually two(!) - very compellingly selling the concept, but beneath it all: no money, no solid plan, no substance. And worse still, they were breaking DEI regs internally - something they professed to be experts in. F***ing frightening tbh.
It's just particularly frustrating when the "mission" is supposedly de&I related. Just feels so disconnected from the reality of the day-to-day behaviour.
Yes! It's a grand gesture in lieu of real values. Fancy job titles and posh lunches aren't much of a perk when you're not being compensated appropriately.
SO.MANY.RED.FLAGS, but I admire your going through with it.
When you are offered half of what you expected, or directly requested (it happened to me a few times, it will happen again), it's quite clear that it is first and foremost and apples vs. oranges situation.
You were clearly thinking about a real managing director's job (and rightly so, as a professional should do), he was clearly thinking about a glorified panelist because that's probably where he comes from, thrives and does most of his bullshitting.
I'm not sure if this guy should be taken as the worst example of the structural issues you listed, he just seems someone who just doesn't have clue of what he's doing — I'm not excusing him in anyway because the fact that these guys can get away with it is totally part of the structural issues.
I really agree with this analysis! I also don't think what he did was "that bad" rather he's just incredibly unaware and inexperienced. That's still a problem but it's more nuanced.
I was just pointing it out because I've seen both guys doing it because of their inexperience and guys doing it on purpose. The real problem is: if you are a man, there's a slippery, patriarchal slope that pulls you from "just inexperienced" to "part of a systemic problem" and we should be all more aware about it.
These days many many people and companies are trying to cut corners, if they can get away with it. It reminds me of certain political positions that have traditionally been unsalaried in parts of the South to insure that only the wealthy elite can afford to become "elected officials".
On the other hand, looking back at the start of my career I declined a job with a magazine over pay -- I didn't even consider it -- but I really should have taken it. I would have learned a lot and didn't have a better offer at the time.Since I was young and could have made it work, I should have looked at it as part of my education. I liked everything about it except the pay!
You’re not extinct! [sigh of relief] When I entered the workforce in the early 1980s the battle cry was “Equal pay for work of equal value.” At the time, this sounded like a matter of common sense, and I naively assumed that once the existing generation of white male executives and politicians retired, the younger generation would put things right. How wrong I was. In the subsequent four decades middle-class women have moved into the ranks of middle management -- albeit at lower salaries than their male peers. But pay equity no longer seems to be a major political issue. Thank you for keeping it (putting it back?) on the agenda.
I’ll leave you with one question. Do you believe that in the few large organizations where a woman is CEO there is pay equity down to the lower ranks? For example, are junior male and female staff at Walgreens Boots Alliance, where Rosalind Brewer is CEO, paid the same for doing the same work?
My take on this. Take what you want and leave the rest. If I see red flags during an interview then I won’t go so far as talk money. It’s not worth it. Now, when I talk about red flags there are shades of grey. Interviewers who really want you will almost certainly sugarcoat the downsides and hype the upsides. In those cases, I’d want to meet the team before making a decision. Example: one of my daughters almost rejected a good offer because she didn’t think the remainder of the team would pull their weight but got assurances from her current manager who is moving to the same, new org. If I can’t get to meet the team on a ‘Here is Den who’s considering joining us as XX, he has some questions,’ then I’m looking at a hard stop.
Titles are often meaningless. MD’s in most firms are concerned with strategy setting, leading teams etc. They’re never employed to do the grunt work. Why have a money convo if the title really IS meaningless? It’s a waste of my time and your ego will be bruised.
If an interview gets to the money question, which ‘should’ be the last hurdle, then I don’t negotiate outside of minor adjustments. I know my worth and by that stage I also know the trade offs I’ll make to execute on the role. If the firm that’s headhunting me doesn’t ‘get’ that then I’ve made a bad mistake.
For context, I was an employee for the 1st 13 years of my career, freelanced for 30 years and was de facto MD (not titled as such) for the final 7 years of my working life. After freelancing for a long time I realised I was unemployable so maybe what I’ve said is no longer relevant.
i'm confused. how is any new organization supposed to fix work?
work exists as part of and within a bigger system. a capitalist imperialist system. it can't be, like, tinkered with in insolation or closed off like it's cosplaying North Korea. work will never be different if the system where it lives doesn't change. "the future of work looks just as shit as work does right now," has been true for so long, the phrase "future of work" had to be invented just so we could talk about it. unless the system changes, it'll stay that way.
also, like, dude-bro calling himself a pioneer? he's not recruiting people to join his wagon on the oregon fucking trail to lead us out of the brokenness of work. he's just building another organization within our current capitalist imperialist system. of course it's gonna act like all the other pre-existing businesses and organizations. that's how the system functions.. Broseph Stalin is selling capitalist exploitation like it's not the same old bullshit. pioneer my ass.
Another day in the life of capitalism 🤪
Truth 📉
Love this! Been there. So frustrating
Oh my life. This was me 14 months ago, but with some slight differences in details. Essentially, a man - actually two(!) - very compellingly selling the concept, but beneath it all: no money, no solid plan, no substance. And worse still, they were breaking DEI regs internally - something they professed to be experts in. F***ing frightening tbh.
It's just particularly frustrating when the "mission" is supposedly de&I related. Just feels so disconnected from the reality of the day-to-day behaviour.
Often a strange red-flag when you get taken to a fancy restaurant.
Can't pay me, but you can order me some side-plates?
No thanks.
Yes! It's a grand gesture in lieu of real values. Fancy job titles and posh lunches aren't much of a perk when you're not being compensated appropriately.
"Can I be paid what I deserve?"
"No, but I will buy you some small plates where one singular croquette is £17."
Let's not even get into what an abomination small plates are as a side note
SO.MANY.RED.FLAGS, but I admire your going through with it.
When you are offered half of what you expected, or directly requested (it happened to me a few times, it will happen again), it's quite clear that it is first and foremost and apples vs. oranges situation.
You were clearly thinking about a real managing director's job (and rightly so, as a professional should do), he was clearly thinking about a glorified panelist because that's probably where he comes from, thrives and does most of his bullshitting.
I'm not sure if this guy should be taken as the worst example of the structural issues you listed, he just seems someone who just doesn't have clue of what he's doing — I'm not excusing him in anyway because the fact that these guys can get away with it is totally part of the structural issues.
I really agree with this analysis! I also don't think what he did was "that bad" rather he's just incredibly unaware and inexperienced. That's still a problem but it's more nuanced.
I was just pointing it out because I've seen both guys doing it because of their inexperience and guys doing it on purpose. The real problem is: if you are a man, there's a slippery, patriarchal slope that pulls you from "just inexperienced" to "part of a systemic problem" and we should be all more aware about it.
These days many many people and companies are trying to cut corners, if they can get away with it. It reminds me of certain political positions that have traditionally been unsalaried in parts of the South to insure that only the wealthy elite can afford to become "elected officials".
On the other hand, looking back at the start of my career I declined a job with a magazine over pay -- I didn't even consider it -- but I really should have taken it. I would have learned a lot and didn't have a better offer at the time.Since I was young and could have made it work, I should have looked at it as part of my education. I liked everything about it except the pay!
You’re not extinct! [sigh of relief] When I entered the workforce in the early 1980s the battle cry was “Equal pay for work of equal value.” At the time, this sounded like a matter of common sense, and I naively assumed that once the existing generation of white male executives and politicians retired, the younger generation would put things right. How wrong I was. In the subsequent four decades middle-class women have moved into the ranks of middle management -- albeit at lower salaries than their male peers. But pay equity no longer seems to be a major political issue. Thank you for keeping it (putting it back?) on the agenda.
I’ll leave you with one question. Do you believe that in the few large organizations where a woman is CEO there is pay equity down to the lower ranks? For example, are junior male and female staff at Walgreens Boots Alliance, where Rosalind Brewer is CEO, paid the same for doing the same work?
My take on this. Take what you want and leave the rest. If I see red flags during an interview then I won’t go so far as talk money. It’s not worth it. Now, when I talk about red flags there are shades of grey. Interviewers who really want you will almost certainly sugarcoat the downsides and hype the upsides. In those cases, I’d want to meet the team before making a decision. Example: one of my daughters almost rejected a good offer because she didn’t think the remainder of the team would pull their weight but got assurances from her current manager who is moving to the same, new org. If I can’t get to meet the team on a ‘Here is Den who’s considering joining us as XX, he has some questions,’ then I’m looking at a hard stop.
Titles are often meaningless. MD’s in most firms are concerned with strategy setting, leading teams etc. They’re never employed to do the grunt work. Why have a money convo if the title really IS meaningless? It’s a waste of my time and your ego will be bruised.
If an interview gets to the money question, which ‘should’ be the last hurdle, then I don’t negotiate outside of minor adjustments. I know my worth and by that stage I also know the trade offs I’ll make to execute on the role. If the firm that’s headhunting me doesn’t ‘get’ that then I’ve made a bad mistake.
For context, I was an employee for the 1st 13 years of my career, freelanced for 30 years and was de facto MD (not titled as such) for the final 7 years of my working life. After freelancing for a long time I realised I was unemployable so maybe what I’ve said is no longer relevant.
i'm confused. how is any new organization supposed to fix work?
work exists as part of and within a bigger system. a capitalist imperialist system. it can't be, like, tinkered with in insolation or closed off like it's cosplaying North Korea. work will never be different if the system where it lives doesn't change. "the future of work looks just as shit as work does right now," has been true for so long, the phrase "future of work" had to be invented just so we could talk about it. unless the system changes, it'll stay that way.
also, like, dude-bro calling himself a pioneer? he's not recruiting people to join his wagon on the oregon fucking trail to lead us out of the brokenness of work. he's just building another organization within our current capitalist imperialist system. of course it's gonna act like all the other pre-existing businesses and organizations. that's how the system functions.. Broseph Stalin is selling capitalist exploitation like it's not the same old bullshit. pioneer my ass.