The Promotion Timing Sweet Spot

Editor's Note: Today's post comes to us courtesy of guest contributor Chris Dobyns.

Promotions are probably one of the most misused, misunderstood, and therefore challenging tools that management has available in its recognition and reward toolbox. All too often, promotions and the promotion process in organizations will be adapted by supervisors and employees and used for a variety of purposes for which it was never intended. 

Purpose For Promotions

Over the years, any number of explanations of the purpose for granting promotions have been offered. So, what are promotions for? For the organization, promotion offers individual advancement to perform available work at the next hierarchical level, for the benefit of the work unit.  For employees, promotions obviously provide increased financial reward in exchange for their greater skill level and the corresponding value they contribute to the organization.  Promotions also convey an increased sense of status and prestige to the employee, as an intrinsic form of recognition and reward.

Compensation theory generally acknowledges that there are only two types of promotions: organization and growth.  Due to their abstract nature, growth promotions are perhaps more prone to misunderstanding and misuse.

Growth promotions are a means to recognize not only demonstrated and continued increase in the knowledge, skill and ability of employees to perform work of the same nature, but also the proven ability to perform higher level work on a sustained basis.

Identifying the optimal timing for recognizing an employee with a growth promotion is probably the most difficult challenge for organizations and particularly for supervisors. Making the decision on a growth promotion too soon -- or too late -- can have negative consequences for both the employer and the employee.

Promotion Timing – Too Soon

Making the decision to promote an employee before they’re ready can set the employee up for failure in their “new”, higher level position. If the employee has been trained and developed, and has been observed performing at the next higher level over a prolonged period of time, promotions that are granted too soon should occur very rarely. 

A highly-motivated employee who is promoted too early will often recognize this fairly quickly. These individuals will sometimes commit themselves to being successful, which can result in the person burning him or herself out  in order to meet the expectations of the organization, their boss, their co-workers, or their own expectations.

Promotions given too early can create challenges for the immediate supervisor, where the higher performance levels may not be fully met. The organization will also suffer while the higher level work is not being fully or successfully performed, but where the employee now represents an increased cost, due to their higher salary.

Employees promoted too soon – or perhaps just more frequently than is warranted -- can also create unrealistic, long-term expectations of future advancement for employees.  

Promotion Timing – Too Late

A decision to promote an employee too late can demotivate the employee, or the employee may elect to leave the organization.  Promotions that come too late can be as much a matter of perception by the employee, as reality; considerable research has shown that individuals are incredibly bad at assessing their own performance and potential. With either outcome, the organization loses out on potential value-added outputs from the employee, for the short-term, long-term, or both.

The Sweet Spot

If you promote at just the right time, everything is right with the world. The expectations of the employee and the needs of the organization are perfectly aligned . . . which may not happen quite as often as preferred. 

One of the keys to aligning all parties’ expectations is the familiar solution of regular communication -– principally between the employee and the supervisor.  The obligation of the employee is to communicate their future goals, aspirations and interest in being promoted.  The supervisor’s role is to listen, provide training and opportunities which will ready the employee for promotion, and communicate honest and candid feedback. Combining all these elements will help the employee shape their future expectations, align them to the future needs of the organization and ensure that, to the extent possible, everyone arrives at the promotion “sweet spot” as close to the same time as possible.

Everyone probably has a different perspective.  What’s yours?

Chris Dobyns, CCP, CBP, is Manager of the Office of Human Resource Strategies for one of the largest U.S. intelligence agencies. The Office of Human Resource Strategies is responsible for compensation and incentives, occupational structure, recognition and rewards, HR policy, and human capital program evaluation and assessment for his Agency. Chris has worked in the area of compensation for more than 30 years, and has been employed in various compensation-related positions by a number of large, private sector companies including, Sears, Roebuck, Arizona Public Service and Westinghouse Savannah River Company.

Comments

[Jacque Vilet]

Great post Chris and so true! I might add that promotions that happen too soon are used for retaining employees in countries that are experiencing tight labor markets. It's not just a problem for the company that promotes, but also a company that is interviewing external candidates. Oftentimes these companies make assumptions about a candidate's skills/achievements based on the person's title when in actuality the candidate doesn't have skills that match the title. Companies that hire them end up with employees that can't do the job they were hired for. Another example of a lose-lose situation.

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Big topic well summarized, Chris. The Peter Principle is always a threat, but it is remarkable how often candidates "not quite ready" prove perfectly qualified when "prematurely" promoted due to some emergency need. Biggest other issue remains the reluctance of some firms to trim less valuable tasks from the old job in order to permit concentration on the more vital responsibilities of the new post; that can spoil good promotions.

[Jacque Vilet]

This may be the idealist in me but it would be easier if the manager and employee had a career progression plan already worked. I mean detailed technical/functional skills as (my opinion) those are the reasons people get promoted.

Detailed plans so that an employee knows when he/she has mastered the skills necessary to be promoted ---- no wishing, quessing, pouting, grousing.

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

In my experience, Jacque, the availability of an open "slot" is also essential. If the budget or other organizational needs do not permit an upgrade, the personal human capital talent of the incumbent may remain limited to lesser applications than their skills might fit. That's one of the major drawbacks of "job"-based environments versus skill-based systems.

Still, all well-designed HR programs will indeed define the entry requirements for higher pay eligibility. That's also essential to allow cross-disciplinary training that can accelerate both developmental and promotional growth. But mere possession of the KSAs doesn't guarantee "promotion" or "progression" nor does either always come come in the shape originally envisioned.

Of course, Chris may have other thoughts....

[Jacque Vilet]

Hmmm . . . I've never worked with companies that require a "slot" in order to promote. If an employee is ready they're promoted. Sometimes promotions can only occur at focal review time --- but sometimes not --- can occur anytime. So I haven't run into the situations you describe. I'm also not suggesting merely have a skill ---- it's the demonstrated ability of "doing" it not having it.

[Chris Dobyns]

I've been remiss in checking in on the comment traffic to this posting today, but unfortunately we had something of a "technical black hole" at work earlier today (let's put the blame for that on the Heartbleed Bug for now . . .).

Whether your system requires a "slot" (position-based) or skills (person-based), promotions are a management tool, that aligns with and supports the organization's human capital strategy. Consequently, promotions (should) occur when the employee can contribute additional value, and when the organization has higher level work available to be performed.

So, which system is preferable? There’s an old saying that, “somewhere between the loan shark and the bank lies the truth”. Similarly, either system used in the extreme will likely prove to be unworkable for the long-term. Therefore, not unlike promotion timing, "the sweet spot" between the two systems probably lies somewhere in the middle?