[EZ-E]

> Businesses don’t do promotions at senior levels because you “deserve” it. They promote those who have the highest potential to deliver outsized impact and value.

What I've seen more of is: people get promoted because they already do the job at the higher level, or close to it

[baal80spam]

> What I've seen more of is: people get promoted because they already do the job at the higher level, or close to it

That's exactly how it works in my company (small org). They clearly state that the person needs to be doing "the needful" for around a year before being officially promoted to the position.

Genuinely curious - is that not thow it usually works?

[thaumasiotes]

Sean Goedecke articulated a different theory of promotion (at large tech companies; it probably does generalize to large non-tech companies and almost certainly won't generalize to small companies):

He said that you get a promotion for one of two reasons:

(a) the company is afraid that, without the promotion, you'll leave; or

(b) the company wants you to accomplish some task, and believes that you will be better able to do it if granted additional political power.

This post seems to agree well with that option (b). It advises that you make the case for your own promotion based on two prongs:

(1) the success of my project is important to the business;

(2) my project is more likely to succeed if I am promoted.

(The post also throws full support to option (a).)

[danaris]

This seems, to me, to be a fairly dysfunctional way of operating, at least as a general rule.

It's far, far too easy for an organization that operates this way to abuse it: oh, you want to be promoted to Assistant Director? Here are all the tasks of Assistant Director; better get doing them for a while and prove to us you can do the job!

...Oh, it's been a year and you want the promotion? Sorry! We just hired a new Assistant Director. Time to train your new boss, because we already know you're great at the job! (What? Oh, yes; that is the Director's nephew, how good of you to spot that! That's why we knew he'd be a great fit.)

> Genuinely curious - is that not thow it usually works?

IME, it's far more common for one of two setups to be in place:

a) If you want a promotion, you have to prove that you've been doing the job you're in very well over a longer period of time—and, in many cases, if you fail to achieve a promotion after a certain length of time, you're fired. (The "Up or Out" philosophy.) In some cases, you don't even explicitly apply for a promotion; if you do well enough in your performance reviews over time, you're just given the promotion, whether you want it or not.

b) If you want a promotion—too bad. We don't promote from within. Well, we don't outright say that. Some people can get promoted from within—they just have to kiss the right asses the right way at the right times. But we'll absolutely expect you to take on the work of your colleagues who leave because the work environment sucks. And your boss, when they leave. But without extra pay.

[tpoacher]

Doing the job "at a higher level" isn't enough. There must also be a 'bus factor' at play.

Otherwise you're the shmuck who does expensive work cheaper. If you start making trouble and ask for more money you're better off being replaced with another ambitious shmuck who's willing to work cheap without causing trouble.

[sevenzero]

Either that or nepotism.

[DanielVZ]

Or just popularity (perceived impact vs actual impact)