Which promotion system seems fairest to you as a leader?
Our reader poll today asks: Which system of promotion seems the fairest and most just to you as a leader?
– Seniority-based meritocracy –people should pay their dues for a time, then be promoted based on ability: 51%
– Meritocracy — people should advance as quickly as their abilities allow: 48%
– Seniority — people should pay their dues and demonstrate loyalty if they want to advance: 1%
Clearly, all of you place a heavy emphasis on merit-based promotions, but there’s still that “paying your dues” requirement in there. I’ll bet when you’re the one getting promoted, you want it to be all about meritocracy, but when others seek promotion, that’s when the “you have to pay your dues” component kicks in. Yes, seniority is important, but it is merely a proxy for determining whether someone is committed to the organization and whether they understands the nature of your business. Once people have achieved those two requirements, meritocracy should truly kick in as the deciding factor on a promotion.
Do you agree with these poll results? Let us know in the comments below!
– Mike Figliuolo at thoughtLEADERS, LLC
Did you enjoy this post? If so, I highly encourage you to take about 30 seconds to become a regular subscriber to this blog. It’s free, fun, practical, and only a few emails a week (I promise!). SIGN UP HERE to get the thoughtLEADERS blog conveniently delivered right to your inbox!
These results were originally a SmartPulse poll in SmartBrief on Leadership which tracks feedback from more than 190,000 business leaders. Get smarter on leadership and sign up for the SmartBrief on Leadership e-newsletter.
I’m wondering if one of the reasons for the “Seniority-based meritocracy –people should pay their dues for a time, then be promoted based on ability: 51%” is that otherwise, people fear that there may be nepotism/favoritism helping drive the promotional decisions. E.g., person recently hired at company, climbs ladder and is promoted to near senior leaders within four years – merit or favorite?
I am interested in seeing this data broken down a bit more by age cohort. My theory is that the younger age cohort will say 100% merit and older cohort will say pay some dues first. A critical lesson we are all learning with the new incoming workforce (younger generation), right or wrong, is that their work expectations are different. How we address their needs and wants, I believe, will significantly alter how we successfully manage, work with, promote and benefit from their rising talent. Has anyone experienced the mom of your new young hire calling in sick for them or asking about how much vacation they get… get ready – this is real and starting to happen.
A LOT would depend upon the organization for which you work, or to ask the question that rises first to my mind when trying to think about a proposal: “for whom and under what conditions?”
Early in government (19th century) political patronage and nepotism were rampant, causing severe inefficiencies and making the executive branch (and parts of the judicial branch) a dangerous joke. The tough, rigorous entrance exam and the seniority system established for civil service addressed the problem nicely. However, today, the entrance examination has been eliminated and the seniority system alone only addresses political patronage and nepotism, but fails to address competency.
In private, family-owned companies there is room for autocracy, but at least there are alternative employers to reign that in, and a form of meritocracy combined with a loyalty measure is probably what works well.
In a massive corporation, you can have all the problems in various segments of the organization, but probably not systematically throughout the organization (or it will go under or be bought out and reorganized). So again, it depends on how tightly and how widely the corporation hiring, promotion, and oversight policies are extended. A corporate board and leadership that only talks to and evaluates component leadership might have pockets in the organization where 2nd and 3rd tier leadership behave significantly differently and where merit or seniority might be differently emphasized to protect the employees and the larger organization’s long term viability.
In the long term, what matters is that promotions be based on merit and seniority because an organization needs competent AND loyal employees with the historical knowledge in order to be successful in innovation while not repeating historical mistakes. What is best for an individual depends upon the conditions under which they are currently employed. What is best for leadership depends upon the environment of the organization.