« Cafe Classic: Why We Should Rethink Employee Years of Service Programs | Main | Ownership is an Emotion »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Timing for the individual is important but I am also wondering on the practical side - do you allow the growth promotion to occur only once a year? Twice a year? Or whenever a manager feels the employee is ready and the need is felt?

On the sales side of our organization, there is a quarterly timeframe that is followed - as well as during our annual increase process - depending on the position and type of promotion. On the operations side we are currently asked to hold to the annual cycle. As a result, we often have mnore organizational promotions on the operational side.

We have been thinking of starting a formal twice per year promotion cycle because we have a lot of year end/ start requests since our annual cycle is effective in June. Curious how others are handling the growth promotions.

Promotions are a tough topic to try and cover comprehensively in 700 words.

Here's some additional input though. I'd say that the frequency of growth promotions are bounded by well, growth. Only except in the early career levels would you typically expect to see sustained growth in employees that might warrant more than one promotion per year (because the employee is developing quickly and because there's typically not much difference between work at the entry levels).

I'm equivocal about the use of promotions linked to specified timing frequencies. For growth promotions, this assumes that employees will be "ready" for promotion according to some preset schedule that's known in advance - and that's just not how life and reality works out. And for organization promotions almost the same issue applies. Because how are you going to know that a certain organization position is going to open up according to a certain schedule, because someone would need to quit or retire (or die), right on schedule. Absent that, you'll be asking someone to fill-in in the now vacant position, but not promoting them and not really paying them the true worth of the job.

My experience in long-term manpower planning and monitoring backup assessments against actual performance after promotion strongly suggests that "readiness" is always severely underestimated by raters. Literally no one promoted from the backup queue despite being rated as requiring a few more years ever failed to perform at a high level when some emergency required them to step up to that next job for which they were considered unprepared until really needed.

The Perfect is the enemy of the Good.

The comments to this entry are closed.