Yeah the only real big, career making projects that I could think of in a contact center roles are
Merger / divestiture related (e.g. set up a separate contact center or knowledge transfer to a company that bought a product/division)
IT related (e.g. business lead for a new service desk / CRM software implementation)
Outsourcing the contact center
Those are only going to come with specific business conditions, so projects are maybe not a good way to make a name for yourself.
I have less experience in other areas (projects were basically how I advanced my own career) so I canât offer better advice. If you can leverage your role with sales into some new concept that noticeably impacts revenue that would obviously be a way to get your name on the radar of senior management.
I think if you were passed over for a thing you thought you were qualified for, then you basically have 3 paths
Be content where youâre at for a while
Look outside your current employer
Understand why you werenât shortlisted and fix that yourself (I would really focus your discussion on getting feedback rather than development). Hopefully there is someone in the process who can give you straight feedback
Anyway some people are confused because a lot of companies doing layoffs in the tech sector right now are making record profits. The layoffs are not about survival, theyâre about correcting for overhiring and theyâre also a great opportunity to fire weak performers.
Tech just got completely out of hand with compensation. It feels like instead identifying the top 10% of engineers who are well worth the $600k+ or whatever, they just started paying everyone that much.
well this problem is sort of going to solve itself in a lot of cases. Compensation package at (E.g.) facebook is going to be heavy on stock, and the offer is written for a number of shares. Those shares are now worth a shit-ton less, so if you signed on to facebook two years ago, youâve already got a huge baked-in pay cut over the next two years.
The rule of thumb I learned is that half the productivity of a team comes from the square root of the number of people. So in a team of 4, everyone tends to contribute about equally. In a team of 10, the 3 âbestâ people will drive as much value as the other 7. In a team of 100 people, you are extremely dependent on your top 10 producers.
This is an old business school rule of thumb, so its certainly not iron clad. I do think itâs instructive about how the bureaucracy of organizations destroys value as the organization grows. The larger the team gets the more people there will be filling out TPS reports and following up on TPS reports and writing reports about the TPS reports.
Also, predictably, if you describe this concept to a team of 100 people them 100 of them will whole heartedly agree that him and the other 9 guys are carrying the team.
yeah but this is an extremely skewed distribution, PARTICULARLY for sales.
like, if you have that many AEs selling that little product, they should have been gone a long time ago. Sales guys get canned (or just move on) all the time and it shouldnât require a layoff to get rid of them. Itâs way different than engineering or other post-sales roles.
Not only TPS reports, but playing politics instead of working. As the size of the organization scales, senior leaders are completely disconnected from who is truly adding value so itâs completely rational to focus on ass kissing instead of producing.
Separate issue. I think I know the answer but what is the standard advice for someone who suddenly realizes that are drastically underpaid? Like say theyâre chugging along making $100k, pretty happy, then they find out Joe Blow with the same job is making $200k? Is there anything to do here other than job hop?
Absolutely. I think the magic of 4 person teams is thereâs no where to hide. Thereâs only six relationships there so you canât blame others form your failures. If you waste time in a 4 person team, the other 3 people will know.
Even in a team of just 10, suddenly there are 45 relationships. Every relationship is a possible dependency. Time will be wasted just tracking who is doing what and who owes what to whom. And if A owes B a deliverable and fails, there are suddenly a ton of downstream impacts and itâs actually hard to find the original sin in a sea of failures.
I think your options are leave, get another job offer and use it as leverage, or just directly confront your employer and demand more pay. Option 3 is immediately available but if your employer says no then suddenly everyone is angry.
you can get a bump by confronting the boss but there are usually going to be some sort of caps on the maximum size of a bump that HR has imposed, and the bigger the company the more set in stone those policies are, and even if you get it, there will be a bunch of residual bad tastes (possibly on both sides depending on how it goes down)
pretty sure these numbers are off by a lot, I literally cannot believe there is nobody at salesforce pulling down 7 figures, especially if that stat above is correct.
Apparently Goldman and Morgan Stanley both just did massive layoffs and are paying zero 2022 bonus (like half or more of your comp in banking), just brutal.
Insiders claim the Wall Street giant â whose Wednesday layoffs were dubbed âDavidâs Demolition Dayâ after CEO David Solomon â emailed calendar invites that called targeted employees to phony business âmeetingsâ at its New York headquarters.
But once the employees arrived in a conference room â many of them for meetings as early as 7:30 a.m. Wednesday â they were greeted by the head of the team telling them they were getting canned and their manager grimly observing the proceedings.
Indeed, the cold efficiency of the proceedings took on a more chaotic feel as many managers werenât clear about next steps, including when health insurance coverage would end or how much severance fired employees would receive.
Thatâs partly because the human resources department was among the units that were hard hit by the firings, and lacked the headcount to properly administer the meetings, insiders said.
My interpretation, based on a quick skim of some articles, is that they fired 3,200 employees with an overall plan to get rid of a total of 4,000. The expectation is that, by giving the remaining 800 employees a zero bonus, those employees will leave voluntarily.
I couldnât see anything to suggest that everyone is getting zero. That would be shocking.
