|
|
|
|
| |
The practice of promoting employees for their high level of performance seems like the right thing to do. After all, they deserve it, right? Well as deserving as they may be, promotions should not be handled like rewards for five very strong reasons. |
|
| |
First, as people come to see that doing a good job leads to promotions, the pyramidal-hierarchy becomes more and more reinforced. This means that people will expect to be promoted when they do good work. But since there are only so many promotions to go around, the organization is limited in terms of how many people it can reward in this way. Many more good employees are going to be disappointed than pleased with this policy. (Employee Rewards in Japan) |
|
| |
The second problem arises after high performing employees take their new promotions. Very often we see that employees who excelled in their old positions are not doing as well in their new jobs. This is because promotions often entail new types of responsibilities, like staff or budgetary oversight, that the new person has not been adequately prepared for. |
|
| |
Take the archetypal example of the master sales person. He or she busts all the sales records set by anyone in the company routinely, and because of this great service, gets promoted to the post of Vice President in charge of Sales. For the sales person, this means no more closing deals (the real thrill), and for the organization, this means losing a master sales person. This is a lose/lose situation that need not happen at all. The only reason it does is because everyone wants to do what is expected of them, and so everyone bites down on the bullet. |
|
| |
The third problem with handling promotions like rewards is that it can actually foster laziness – the exact opposite of the desired outcome. This is because behaviour is temporary and dependent on the environment, while the promotion itself is permanent and the environment of the new job is often very different from that of the old job. |
|
| |
Think of it in this way (if you will permit the analogy): Imagine that you are a dog owner intent on training your dog Rover to do tricks. Now ask yourself, would you give your dog a lifetime supply of treats and a bigger doghouse when he got the trick right? Of course not, because you know that to do so would eliminate any future options you would have to motivate him. It might even change Rover’s personality entirely. |
|
| |
Will it make Rover lazy? Will Rover still apply himself? Will Rover get too comfortable and stop being such a great dog? While we must be cautious not to over simplify the complexities of human behaviour, it often does not stray much from the complexities of Rover-behaviour. |
|
| |
The forth problem arises when someone gets promoted into a position, and does not rise any further. As explained above, this can happen because they are unhappy with the work, because they are not ready for the job, or because they became too comfortable and "rested on their laurels". (Employee Performance Standards) What you have in this instance is a road block. Because this one person is not advancing any more, you now have a rather vexing problem when trying to advance the people below him or her. |
|
| |
Ironically, the fifth problem with the "promotions as rewards" system was actually intended. According to the old textbook, competition for promotions was supposed to be a boon to both productivity and creativity. Two or more employees competing for the same position would each seek to out-do one another. When the promotion was announced, the winner took the job, and everyone was happy that the best person won. This hogwash has been fouling working relationships ever since, creating disgruntled employees and causing protest resignations. |
|
| |
Primarily, this is because this old system encourages two kinds of self-serving behaviours in promotion candidates. The first is to make oneself look good at the expense of others. The second is to make others look bad to one’s benefit. Both of these behaviours lead candidates into a vicious cycle of animosity and revenge. |
|
| |
The result is that candidates direct their creative talents into the task of defeating each other. They engage in all kinds of defensive and offensive posturing which acts as a drain on productivity. (Pitfalls of Internal Competition) |
|
| |
These five problems aside, the practice of handling promotions as rewards is just plain wrong. The decision to promote someone should be a strategic decision – one that considers the best interests of the organization. To make this decision properly, we must consider if the employee’s talents are suited for the new position. |
|
| |
Very often, this cannot be determined by looking at someone’s work record, especially when the new position requires a skill set that is very different from the established skill set of the employee. This is why performance on the old job is often not a good indicator of performance in the new job. |
|
| |
Because of this, companies must take a more proactive role in the futures of their employees, grooming employees for bigger and better things right from the start of the employment relationship. This is not just a matter of skills training and development, but also of motivating employees to rise to the challenge - to take on new responsibilities and grow for the benefit of the organization and their career. Implementing positive and high-powered employee motivation is perhaps the most important tactical endeavour of organizations in this new era of the knowledge economy. |
|
| |
Ideally, your company would motivate and groom employees so well, that all promotions would be internal. (Advanced Human Resource Strategy) Similarly, employees must take a more responsible role for their own advancement through the company’s ranks, making every effort to prepare themselves for responsibilities they do not yet have. Given these new ideals, the entire system of employee motivation, reward, recognition, incentive and promotion must be overhauled to reflect the new needs of companies in the twenty-first century. |
|
