Career Growth Calculus

It's up to you to prioritize your growth in a position.

Time = Money : we trade our time to the company for their money.

So: Time (ours) = Money (theirs)

This is the general idea, but really:

Time (ours) = Money (theirs) + Growth (ours)



Growth is nuanced. It's what we often get from it that benefits us. Most often growth pays off later at the next company or in your next role in the same company. It doesn't do you immediate good now. Growth also compounds itself, in a way that salary does not. The amount of growth you have today puts you in a better position for more growth later. You're a junior engineer now, but you grow and you're a senior engineer tomorrow, different role. Pay advanced $10k-20k. The day after, you're a manager, and pay increased $30k, because that's the market rate for your kind of manager. You can spread out that growth over time, moving slowly. But if you grow faster, you're making $10k earlier, and then $30k even earlier. Year to year, the growth you had yesterday, put your in a much better place today.

Without that growth, changing jobs while doing essentially the same thing, your pay may increase slowly and steadily until it hits its natural limit. In other words, linearly. Maybe every job change gets you $1k-3k more, every time (or its not worth doing). You started at $30k but once you hit $60k that's the maximum you will ever get, because that is the maximum anyone is willing to pay that job, no matter how good you are doing it. At $61k, it's simply not worth their money to have you do it. That makes sense. You don't make them much more money doing the job now than you did years ago, but you are now costing them more. There is the natural financial incentive to stop paying you more or even to consider eliminating the cost of your position by eliminating the work, or simply trade you in for someone who costs less. If they factor in the costs of lower productivity and any training they need to do, if you cost too much, it may still be worth it.

We want to stay ahead of this curve. Growth is our way of making more money for a company by doing more valuable work. We grow, they pay us more. If they don't someone else does.

So:

Time (ours) = Money (Job 1) + Growth (ours)

where:

Growth (ours) = Money (Job2) = Money (Job 2,3,4...)

So really:

Time (ours) = Money (Job 1) + Money (Job 2, 3,4...)

If you're not prioritizing growing in your job, while it doesn't cost you today, it will tomorrow. You as an employee are heavily incentivized to grow and get experience now because of the long term benefit. The money you get today is short terms, the growth you get today is the long term benefit.

Employers have a different calculus. They buy your work today, primarily for the work you will to today. Work you do today earns them money today and justifies your pay today. By and large the only growth they need to care about is the growth that makes your more efficient so you can earn more for them, which will justify any increases they give you in pay today.

But your growth for them isn't and shouldn't be a principal concern. Their bottom line is will you make the money for them that justifies the money they pay you. Companies are in business to make money, otherwise they are out of business.

For them it is more simply:

Time (ours) = Money (theirs)

It is fully possible at some places that Growth (ours) = Cost (theirs) by putting us in jobs where we are not yet fully capable. For most places, that's also a cost of doing business, in order to get to the point where you are effective and your are making them more money. So any Growth (ours) they are most interested will focus on their future income potential and may be completely separate from where you want to be.

If the employer is having a hard time attracting employees on the basis of the money alone, they will emphasize benefits, including how you will grow. If they don't, that open position is costing them money. Growth is an incentive they want to provide you. It won't likely contribute to their bottom line. It may even cost them, in sending you out to training, letting you try new roles, etc. but that's to keep you happy doing the job that makes them money for which they pay you.

Established companies factor in turnover and lost expertise as a cost of doing business, so they may see it as a wise investment to help you grow so it will cost them less. In rare cases, the investment will be because they have an immediate need but a very specific long term greater focus for you.

But most times I've been interviewed for a position, it has been for roughly that job description only and they are happy if you can bring extra ability.

Which is why you have to understand that their equation for you is "Time = Money" while yours is "Time = Money + Growth". We understand that the criteria are different both sides of the table. You may both match on what your time is worth to them (Time = Money) but disagree on how much growth you need vs. can expect.

We're all free actors, employers and employees. They have their natural interests, we have ours. Very often we are also the "them", representing the interests of the employer as the existing part of the team.

It's up to you to prioritize your growth in the position. It's not up to the company. This is perfectly reasonable.