I've been working really hard at my job lately and was expecting a promotion, but someone else stepped up on my behalf. I'm feeling really bad; why am I not getting the recognition for all my efforts? My male colleagues are in the same situation, but they've 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 didn't 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 'you are a woman'?
@soncaykaldi nothing was clearly stated, but in the last evaluation, I was told that I needed to "act more decisively." 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 'I need to act decisively'? You should have just asked right then and there.
From a labor law perspective, this could be classified as mobbing, but the burden of proof is on you. There should be reliable evidence such as written records, emails, etc. If you have those, it can be taken to an arbitration board 😬
@yazipsildim it's not that easy, you know, who has the courage to go against the boss and approach the referee board, you know 🙂
Statements like 'be more decisive' drive me crazy. They usually attribute it to the cliché that 'women are too soft.' Even if you're right, the blame ends up on you.
it's really frustrating, you shouldn't 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 hasn't happened for you.
The phrase "be more decisive" feels a bit like a trap. They don't say anything concrete, and yet they're making an implied accusation. Have you ever thought about whether they make the same criticism to male colleagues? If they don't, then there's a gender issue at play.
Critiques that are open to interpretation, such as "Act decisively," 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?
How is the promoted person's relationship with the managers? Are they someone who gets along well with them? It's also important to remember the connection factor aside from gender.
When you say "network", it implies that the selection process has become somewhat subjective. If relationships are examined this closely, doesn't 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 "network" 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, isn't the attempt to frame this "network" issue as a standard performance evaluation criterion a bit strange? I mean, isn't it completely disregarding professionalism when placing more emphasis on "who gets along with whom" 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 "networking" thing, it's perceived differently? I mean, connections between men are romanticized as a "team game," while the relationships established by women are seen as "too much intimacy"? Sometimes the problem arises not from the situation itself but from the different interpretations made by both sides.
It's 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 isn’t just at the final decision moment; perhaps it's in the preparation processes leading up to that decision.
Mentorship, additional responsibilities and so on are great points, but what's 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 managers' discretion again? If it entirely relies on visibility and relationships, it seems like we're entering the same cycle again.
There’s also this: Is clear feedback given to those who do not get promoted? I mean, is it specified as "you are lacking in this area," or is it brushed off with vague statements? Because if the feedback isn’t clear, the issue is obviously with the system. That’s where we need to start.
