Iâve been working really hard at my job lately and was expecting a promotion, but someone else stepped up on my behalf. Iâm feeling really bad; why am I not getting the recognition for all my efforts? My male colleagues are in the same situation, but theyâve received promotions.
I went through the same thing. Three years ago, I saw a man get promoted despite having less experience just because he was a man. I didnât stay quiet; I went directly to human resources. Not much changed, but it felt good to get it off my chest.
So, did something make this clear? Like a blatant implication such as âyou are a womanâ?
@soncaykaldi nothing was clearly stated, but in the last evaluation, I was told that I needed to âact more decisively.â Whatever that means.
I think this has a bit to do with you putting too much pressure on yourself. What does it mean to say âI need to act decisivelyâ? You should have just asked right then and there.
In terms of labor law, this could be termed as mobbing, but the burden of proof is on you. There should be substantiated evidence like written records, emails, etc. If available, it can be taken to the arbitration board.
@yazipsildim itâs not that easy, you know. Who dares to go to the referee committee against the boss, you know that too.
Statements like âbe more decisiveâ drive me crazy. They usually attribute it to the clichĂ© that âwomen are too soft.â Even if youâre right, the blame ends up on you.
itâs really frustrating, you shouldnât give up.
I think you should clearly ask about these promotion criteria at the final evaluation meeting; you have the right to know why it hasnât happened for you.
The phrase âbe more decisiveâ feels a bit like a trap. They donât say anything concrete, and yet theyâre making an implied accusation. Have you ever thought about whether they make the same criticism to male colleagues? If they donât, then thereâs a gender issue at play.
Critiques that are open to interpretation, such as âAct decisively,â are usually said to avoid accountability. So, what positive criteria are used to provide feedback to those who have been promoted? Have you learned about that part and made a comparison?
What is their relationship like with the promoted individual? Are they someone who gets along well with managers, are they constantly in the spotlight? Donât overlook the ânetworkâ factor besides gender; promotions generally consider this as well.
When you say ânetworkâ, it implies that the selection process has become somewhat subjective. If relationships are examined this closely, doesnât it turn into a matter of who gets along better with whom? In that case, no one can claim that the criteria are transparent. Does having good relationships equate to knowing how to do business?
If ânetworkâ is important within the company, we need to understand how this process works. Are these connections a form of social solidarity outside of work, or are they a way to become visible in business processes? If having coffee with managers leads to promotions, then the system is fundamentally corrupt.
Well, isnât the attempt to frame this ânetworkâ issue as a standard performance evaluation criterion a bit strange? I mean, isnât it completely disregarding professionalism when placing more emphasis on âwho gets along with whomâ rather than the ability to perform the job? If this is so widespread, then they should just say it openly to avoid unnecessary expectations of success.
Also, think about this; could it be that when women engage in this ânetworkingâ thing, itâs perceived differently? I mean, connections between men are romanticized as a âteam game,â while the relationships established by women are seen as âtoo much intimacyâ? Sometimes the problem arises not from the situation itself but from the different interpretations made by both sides.
Itâs a pretty common situation, but something caught my attention. Have you looked into who gets assigned to side roles (mentorship, additional responsibilities, etc.) during the promotion process and who gets excluded from these opportunities? Generally, upper management gives these kinds of tasks to those they see potential in, but if women are less visible in these roles, we need to dig deeper. Maybe the issue isnât just at the final decision moment; perhaps itâs in the preparation processes leading up to that decision.
Mentorship, additional responsibilities and so on are great points, but whatâs the secret to these processes? For example, when determining who will be assigned to these roles, is there a public announcement made, or are people selected based on the managersâ discretion again? If it entirely relies on visibility and relationships, it seems like weâre entering the same cycle again.
Thereâs also this: Is clear feedback given to those who do not get promoted? I mean, is it specified as âyou are lacking in this area,â or is it brushed off with vague statements? Because if the feedback isnât clear, the issue is obviously with the system. Thatâs where we need to start.