<p>In this episode, Dave and Jamison answer these questions:</p> <ol> <li> <p>Hey guys. This question comes all the way from New Zealand. Recently discovered your podcast about a month ago, and have been catching up with older episodes on morning walks ever since - you guys are awesome. Anyway - the question: Is it more beneficial to work for a company where the software itself is the product (SaaS etc) or does it no longer matter given the rise of the robots anyway? For context - I’ve been working for a telco/internet company for just over five year. Initially when I joined there was a huge roadmap of software to develop internally - things like customer facing portals, diagnostic tools, and of course internal tooling. However over the past couple of years, it has just been cost cutting and downsizing. Given that the company is not in the business of selling software, our department has been stripped to skeletal level just to ‘keep the lights on’. So, I’ve started applying for jobs at SaaS companies on the basis that even with AI, there will at least be a continuous roadmap to work on. Or, is this a case of ‘snakes in the greener grass’… or whatever the idiom is. Keen to hear your thoughts!</p> </li> <li> <p>I’m an EM about 7 months into a role at a larger private software company. When I joined, the explicit expectation was 1 team (~8 direct reports). I’m happy to say my team has crushed it: award-winning product launch, clear monetization path, company IPO positioning. I made some bold headcount decisions, reduced spend, built the team’s trust back up, and things are now actually quite great. I’m generally a cynical person and so I don’t say that lightly :)</p> <p>Last week my boss told me I’m taking on a second team, bringing me to 16 direct reports. When I asked if this was a promotion track, he said no. Apparently the expectation is now ALL EMs manage 2+ teams.</p> <p>Problem: the internal HR leveling rubric still says 2+ teams is a Sr. EM expectation, which I didn’t apply for… precisely because I didn’t want it. When I pointed this out, he said “that’s out of date, and you’re behind your peers because you only have been running one team”. I did the job I was hired to do, did it well, and the goalposts moved without anyone telling me.</p> <p>The kicker: the team I’m absorbing used to be run by a Sr. EM, who now has just one team!!</p> <p>So a Sr. EM is shrinking scope while I’m handed their struggling team and told I’m behind. It wasn’t framed as a vote of confidence. It felt like a quiet reassignment.</p> <p>Three questions: Am I being oversensitive to just poor communication (it’s possible the senior EM is being managed out and I shouldn’t use that as a benchmark)? Should I push for a comp increase since I’m now doing 2x the scope I was hired for? And how hard do I push back?</p> <p>One constraint: I’m a couple months from planned medical leave and can’t afford to leave before then, so I have limited leverage.</p> </li> </ol>
Analysis: done · source seed