I think you expressed the point about "Jim", the marginal employee well (see "Rights, privileges, fairness and equality," Keep the Joint Running, 5/5/2008).
What about the flip side where management only grants "lateral" transfers, but the new job is actually a downgrade or at most equal in pay, more responsibility and more work.
When I was younger, I might have taken such an offer for more experience and skills, but as I've gotten older, I've become a little more wiser and a little bit more cynical.
This actually happens at my current group. If you want off the monitoring consoles for a systems or network admin position, you have to go days and there's no extra pay. Of course, up until the economy went south, a lot of people voted with their feet and got better offers elsewhere within or outside of the company.
Your thoughts?
- Sideways is a movie, not a career direction
Dear Miles ...
Hard to say as a blanket generality. In well-run companies, lateral assignments are the best way to get ahead. They provide visibility and an opportunity to prove your versatility. The people who take them and succeed at them are the ones who get ahead in the long run (and the long run isn't usually all that long).
In poorly run companies it's an excuse to take advantage of people. Or else, it isn't -- it's a way to retain good employees when you know you're going to be laying people off.
Me? I learned -- although too slowly and painfully -- that taking lateral assignments when they are offered is almost always a good career investment. My regrets are entirely around the ones I didn't take, not around the ones I did.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on May 12, 2008 05:43 AM
