1/10 - It's 5:52 in the morning, and I am revisiting decades-old thoughts about race, class, and privilege; about "Line" and "Staff" jobs and who tended to get each in the civilian Federal workplace from which I retired; ...

2/10 - ... about EEO, Diversity, "avoiding the appearance of impropriety" in assigning salary ranges to different classes of hard and sometimes dirty work, and the extent to which these salaries and classes seem "Stamped from the Beginning," to use a phrase from @DrIbram.
3/10 - These ideas and thoughts woke me up from sound sleep and had their seeds in a dream on a recurring theme I was having: I was back in my Federal Civilian office job, and we were once again wrestling with reorganization because it was moving our duties out from under us
4/10 - I have these kinds of dreams because of, I think, my disposition, which according to the way my Federal @DeptofDefense workforce management wanted to divide up the work to be done, made me a tough person to fit . . and possibly to promote.
5/10 - I had no desire to do anything but the fascinating technical work for which I was hired and, later, for which I boosted my productivity tenfold by cross-training. This came at a price, but also raised in my mind questions about that price.
6/10 - Tendencies in hiring, promotion, and career field diversity worried me at a different level from others - I have never truly minded the road less traveled. But my questions, asked out loud or on our "Intranet," just seemed to earn me the management stink-eye.
7/10 - Such as: I know the office chief jobs tend to go to White Males, but the cleaning crew jobs also tend to go to Black Females. If there is a reason for this, why does that reason also affect the relative salary ranges to which those positions' holders can aspire?
8/10 - I was very interested in the "Technical Track," which was presented to us at least ostensibly as a pathway to management level salaries for technical work... but may have been more like @realDonaldTrump's "Path to Re-election, really, in that regard.
9/10 - I do acknowledge that, despite my noticing the systemic or philosophical quirks whose very state of being observed as I was observing them affected my career, I also did benefit from systemic privilege as a White Male.
10/10 - But the difficulty in getting these kinds of concerns addressed, much less questions answered, and the effect I perceived it had on my "tech-track" promotability, left me a misfit who would retire with a merely adequate pension and many unsettled dreams.
ADDENDUM 1: In an auditorium meeting held for the Research Directorate at my agency, the Research Group's director told us in no uncertain terms "Tech Track is a Management tool." We did not quite know what to make of that.
ADDENDUM 2: Loyalism and sycophant-like behavior seemed the way to me to get higher pay, whether one was in tech-track or management-track, "line" or "staff." It is disturbing to see that encouraged in @DeptofDefense by @realDonaldTrump now... but it was present even then.

More from Economy

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.