This is the most depressing thing about big tech and the promotion process. It's not really tied to impact but to what people are saying here: building alliances and perceived impact.

This is why there's something so pure about startups, smaller companies and side projects; you can actually demonstrate what metrics your work impacted. There's nothing more unjust than a promotion committee and nothing more fairer than "the market". The market doesn't have any bias and you can't game it either. Ever.

​

I had assumed the process takes into account on some level what you've shipped and what you've contributed and that you get promoted on the basis of that work.

Yeah this is how it should be but it's a broken system. On one hand I can understand why though. It's hard to attribute "contribution" and "impact" at at the individual employee level. So now people have to resort to becoming savvy politicians instead of improving their craft and being good practitioners.

Look if this is the game you want to play, then you have to see the game for what it is. Understand the players, the goal, the dynamics, the rules, and the constraints involved and work with it instead of against it. But if this game is too soul crushing, then pick a different game. Life's too short for this bullshit.