Why don't companies uplevel Candidates?
It doesn't make sense for companies to not uplevel Candidates when they switch. It was foolish of Google to consistently downlevel people when they wanted to switch. So many companies like Netflix, Apple have strict leveling guidelines and they don't agree to candidates that want to uplevel. Otoh Amazon, Uber, Lyft, Doordash and such companies happily uplevel Candidates. They are much more flexible. Those that have been on hiring panels. Why is upleveling candidates not common in all companies? Because only when I uplevel will I get more income. Because a lateral transition is going to bring me limited TC increase.
Because they are not PIP factory
This. But now even Google laid off and has SCI quota. So I don't see Google will be able to get away with it. Only way is more h1b immigrants from India. GCP has basically decided India is their primary tech centre. They have quit US already.
This is why tech workers should boycott Amazon. The PIP culture is slowly spreading to the rest of tech.
Just lie about your level.
Most companies will easily find out based on background check as companies have standard titles
Usually the managers would like some room to “grow” their team. For example, if someone’s an L5, and wants to come in as L6, the manager will be thinking when can I promote him/her? Even if you qualify for L6 barely, it will take years for them to be able to promote. Also it’s a safe game, you would rather want a high performing L5 than barely performing L6.
But why would someone from let's say L63 at Microsoft move to Amazon L5. ? He/she will want a straight L6 or nothing. L63 at Microsoft make 230-250k. Getting an equivalent L5 offer at Amazon would be 320k-350k max. [Blind] Check out this post! being a doctor is the safest and highest paying job out there (Software Engineering Career) That's like an increase of 70-100k and post tax it ends up becoming 40-60k more of take home. Why would someone join for just 40-60k more take home income ? Unless you decide to hire someone from lower tier companies using YOE as a metric. What I am more interested in learning is why do companies have strict leveling guidelines
They don’t want to hire people that won’t perform to that level of expectations. Why should a company pay for a staff engineer when they are only getting senior level experience?
Because why would someone who is a senior at a good company take lateral transition with limited pay increase? The main point behind switching for many people is a significant TC increase. And that's not possible if companies hire lateral folks. Only way for significant increase in TC is upleveling.
So…don’t switch? Or increase your skill set - sometimes it’s easier to get up leveled elsewhere versus going through a promo but both require similar skills
Probably an outlier case, but I actually got uplevelled when applying to Google. Applied for L3 (was completing a masters in CS at the time + had some non-swe engineering experience from another field). Recruiter reached out asking if I’d be interested in interviewing for L4, and eventually got the L4 offer.
People make lateral moves because over time loyal employees are paid less than new hires, so it makes more sense to become a new hire at a different company. When I left Amazon I was being paid 330k as a tenured L6, while new hires were being paid 500+
Loyal employees are underpaid for their level but not by a huge margin. The Delta is limited. If you were to switch then you would need a significant TC increase which I am not sure which company gives for lateral hires. BTW Amazon has adjusted it's comp bands for internal folks after PCS 2022 so now bottom of the band for L6 is 400k so you would have made 450-480k if you stuck around.
Some companies are late to catch up their comp bands for internal employees. So I can understand what you are saying
My company did for me
By the next hiring frenzy goog will be double up leveling just to get in mediocre talent.
Google Frankly has to fix it's leveling and comp if it doesn't want to become the next Microsoft. But I think Google is more likely to go down Microsoft route with tier 2 pay.
At these big tech companies , it's a mammoth of task to understand internal work environment and in most cases you are going to spend your first 6-12 months just learning . It's only after that will you start contributing . So companies would ideally see if you can really navigate through it before considering you worthy of that level .
But how would a company determine it. ? Based on past experience am I right? Past experience can be bloated. You can oversell yourself. I agree ramp up time is often 6+ months but I don't think that can be used an argument. I see people trying to use YOE as a factor. But I frankly think a lot boils down to simple system design, behavioral, leadership and technical interviews. My pain point is when recruiters or hiring committee remains adamant on leveling.
It makes perfect sense. The company gets to pay people with more experience less.