The Three Year Myth
After being laid off, an author reflects on the 'Three Year Myth,' a corporate tactic where employees are told to wait for promotions or changes that never materialize. This deeply personal account exposes the often-unspoken power dynamics in organizations, advocating for immediate self-advocacy over trusting deferred promises. It's a cautionary tale that resonates widely with career-minded individuals in the tech industry, offering a sharp critique of corporate loyalty.
The Lowdown
In a candid post, the author, recently laid off, dissects a pattern they've observed throughout their career dubbed the "Three Year Myth." This myth refers to instances where employees are told that a desired outcome, such as a promotion, raise, or process change, will occur if they simply wait two to three years. The author recounts how this advice consistently led to them being overlooked or ultimately losing their job, while others later reaped the rewards of their earlier efforts.
Key takeaways from the author's experience include:
- The "Three Year Myth" is a pervasive corporate strategy used to maintain the status quo and control employees, often resulting in unfulfilled promises.
- The author provides examples, such as pioneering FinOps work only to see another colleague celebrated for it years later, or having a technically superior proposal rejected due to internal politics.
- Being asked to wait for something earned is viewed as a power move by those in charge, designed to preserve their position at the expense of an employee's growth.
- This waiting period allows those in power to maneuver around the employee, potentially leading to their downfall.
- The author concludes that waiting for recognition or advancement ultimately robs an individual of current recognition and future growth.
- Given the fickle nature of employers and their lack of loyalty, employees should not extend loyalty themselves.
Ultimately, the author asserts that being told to wait without clear context is a significant red flag, signaling that one may be viewed as a threat rather than an asset. Their hard-won lesson is to act immediately to secure what has been rightfully earned, rather than passively trusting in future corporate assurances.