Hi,
I am an Engineering manager who applied for GTV exceptional talent and was rejected after the appeal as well.
This made me wonder how much is the approval linked to being a manager/people manager. For context, I applied with the following details
- 12 years experience working in data and tech field at Spotify, Meta and other global companies across 6 countries.
- Over 8 presentations at big international conferences eg Big Data LDN, Ai Summits New York, India, Munich etc.
- Over 2 years of mentorship experiences with 3 different organisations with 5 certified references from mentees
- Volunteering experience with Microsoft and Datakind UK
- Drove projects at work that has saved and will save 20million USD annually from now on.
- Drove project to save 1milliom USD at Meta with my work
- References from global directors at my company attesting the work I mentioned above.
- References from industry leaders in data. Blockchain sphere highlighting my work and impact it has on the industry
- Speaking at 4 podcasts across the globe on data, AI and career advancement.
- Equity awards at my company well ahead of time to reward the company savings.
- Higher than average compensation at my role
I assumed this was sufficient enough to apply for this. But each time all criteria’s were rejected stating this is expected from someone at my role.
I am not sure if this is the case as far as I know.
I did work with an agency to put together the case which is highly vetted and known in my workplace for success with GTV.
So reflecting back, I wonder if the job title and the fact that I am not an exact “Engineer” per se has anything to do with the blanket rejection.
Please find below the response from my appeal
For MC1, we agree with the previous review that the designated evidence covering various speaking engagements and the complimentary recommendations do not sufficiently demonstrate how the applicant has achieved current and sustained national or international recognition in the past 5 years. We agree with the previous review that compensation on its own is insufficient to meet this criteria. Overall we agree with the previous review that the evidence provided is insufficient to demonstrate and verify how the applicant meets MC1.
For OC2, we agree with the previous review that evidence which is largely self-authored lacks evidence to explain their individual contribution, sector advancement and notable industry recognition. We agree that the podcasts examples do not sufficiently demonstrate the advancement of the sector. We agree that the mentoring evidence including listings, posts and LinkedIn post lack sector advancement. Overall we agree that evidence including the referral is insufficient to demonstrate and verify how the applicant meets OC2.
For OC3, we agree with the previous review that the Meta evidence regarding productivity gains and Spotify examples regarding and cost reduction do not sufficiently show and verify how the applicant individually made multiple notable significant contributions that directly resulted in notable and tangible impact on a product-led digital technology company and on the field. Overall we agree that evidence is insufficient to demonstrate and verify how the applicant meets OC3.