No promotions in place

[floattuber]

I'm not sure if this is a new policy or it has always been like this, but I've learned that my company has a policy where one cannot get promoted in place. That is, in order to be promoted, a job position has to be opened and I would have to interview for it along with everybody else. This even includes the next step up from my current position.

It seems to me I have no incentive to stay around too long. For now, I'm content with where I am but that's beside the point. I've already seen 1 person jump ship because of this policy and he was an asset to the company.

Is this a common policy? What do you all think about such a policy?

 

[IRstuff]

I'm not necessarily surprised, even though we don't do that here. However, a previous company we had to post jobs for those requiring H1B visas.

There may be various reasons for your company's policy, probably mostly short-sighted; a simple explanation would be overly in-control control-freak(s).

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[rbulsara]

It usually futile to complain about company policies if you are not in charge of policies. Even if you have so called may have a way to recommend something.

If you are good enough, most of us are, just look for a place you feel comfortable with. It may take a few job changes, and may come with a price but could be worth it. It is much easier to find our ways around obstacles than trying to remove all the obstacles we may run into.

Rafiq Bulsara

http://www.srengineersct.com

 

[HgTX]

We had that policy here, many years before my time. They stopped doing it. I assume they stopped doing it because it was idiotic. If you have to compete for the next step up in your job, what happens if you don't get it? Do you lose your old job too, because it got converted to the new one? Or is the company forced to add another FTE that they didn't really need, and now they have two people doing your one-man job, one slightly more advanced than the other?

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[ctopher]

I quit a company a few years ago for this reason.
I did the job of three people. After 11 years I asked for a promotion. I had one promotion a few years earlier.
I was told that the next position up would be my manager's position.
There had used to be a position between me and him, but it was eliminated.
They really wanted me in the company, but not willing to make me happy.
This was at the beginning of today's recession.

The way I see it, if you have an employee that the company likes and wants to keep, they should do what they can to keep him/her.
I'm fortunate to have had two good jobs since, laid off from one of them.

Chris
SolidWorks 09 SP5.0
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[ajack1]

Actually I don’t see it as stupid at all.

If they want you to fill that position you will still get the job, but if there is a better candidate available then it will be offered to them. Surely every company should be looking to get the best person available in ever position?

If you took the argument that you should only promote from within to extremes there would be no one new ever join the company other than at entry level positions and the tea boy would become the MD if no one else wanted the job.

Surely bringing in new people with new ideas, contacts and experience is what makes companies grow stronger?

 

[SomptingGuy]

It depends what's meant by "promotion". If it means doing the same essential job, but with more responsibility, I don't think interviewing is required (isn't that what reviews/appraisals are for?).

- Steve

 

[rbulsara]

To me if a company insists on applying and "interviewing" its own employees, they are also saying it is OK for you to actively seek a job outside the company too. Let them know that is how you interpret the policy.

Also why work for a company who does not know the worth of their own employees?

Rafiq Bulsara

http://www.srengineersct.com

 

[Ron]

In some respects, most companies have such a policy, although it usually isn't formalized. What you describe is more common in public jobs and the military than in private practice, though it does exist there.

If they combine such a policy with no clear career path of progression, you are doomed to hang around forever or find a better job. If the only job you can get is your boss's job, and he's not much older than you...it could be a long wait. Move on.

 

[IRstuff]

Formalistically, the promotion of a worker requires:
> A suitable position with more responsibilities and pay for the promotee
> Someone to do the work that the promotee no longer does

Both of these require some level of management oversight and review to determine the business case and financing. This is required to get to the step of determining that a promotion is possible.

However, this is wholly separate from whether the promotee is required to be interviewed. While looking for the best possible candidate is desireable, promotion within is equally desireable. No company could readily survive a complete swapping out of people every time a promotion occurs, the training and downtime would be enormous.

Promotion from within allows for relatively seamless transitions, i.e., the promotee could still carry on his original work, while transitioning to his new responsibilities.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[weab]

Is this a company like an oil or minerals company that does a project, and when it's almost over everyone has to apply for another project within the company because their position will no longer exist after the initial project? If that's what you are talking about, then I'm not surprised.

If you are in, let's say, a consulting engineering company, then this is surprising to me because I have never heard of this. Apparently some others are familiar with it though.

Regardless, my initial take is the management would love it. They have no tough decisions to make in this matter. They no longer have to feel guilty consoling a disappointed employee who wants a promotion because it's not his or her fault. It's that other guy who wouldn't hire you for another position. I would think that this would discourage some employees quicker and get them to leave on their own. As long as an employee isn't totally incompetent in the current position, no one has to get fired or pay unemployment.

To answer your question, I don't believe that this is a common policy. I personally don't like it, but don't jump ship too quickly. For a young go-getter, this could be an excellent way to progress quickly. I'd try it out for a few years and see if it works for you. I'd say that you'll know by your second attempted promotion.

Good Luck.

 

[whammett]

I work for a large oil and gas company. Years ago when I was just an intern, still in college, they did away with this policy, at least among the engineers. However, we also went from being very independent over the years, to working in design teams.

Now, promotion is based strictly on merit. If you have a patent with the company, your almost garunteed a promotion. Raises work differently. And just like with everywhere else, politics plays a huge role.

However, I dont completely disagree with posting jobs internally. It creates competition, and only those who really want to suceed and move up will continuously apply for upper-level positions within the company.

"Scientists dream about doing great things. Engineers do them." -James Michener

 

[OHIOMatt]

The company that formally worked for had a policy similiar to this. It was a result of complaints of favortism. Opening the position and posting it on the companies intranet at least made everyone aware of the open position and the requirements for it. It also made it less likely that a promotion would be given to "less" qualified candidates in terms of years of experience etc.

As with everything in life there were unintended consequences. To apply for the position you had to submit a resume. It seemed that once employees got their resume polished, they started sending it to other firms. We lost some talented people as a result.

 

[TPL]

To me if a company insists on applying and "interviewing" its own employees, they are also saying it is OK for you to actively seek a job outside the company too

Possibly but...in the interest of fairness to all, this can bea good way of doing things. My former company would simply appoint from within, often without anyone but the appointed candidate knowing that a promotion/vacancy actually existed (jobs for the boys and that sort of thing...). This created a lot of ill feeling, towards both management and the appointee because of all the secrecy that must have preceded the appointment. I argued strongly that whilst management 'might' have had a candidate in mind for a position, it was only fair to throw it open to all employees to apply - that way, they would get an opportunity for interview practice and an (hopefully) honest explanation/appraisal of why they didn't get the position so that they could improve themselves for future opportunities. This also gives notice to management of those people who are actively seeking to better their position (and might consider leaving)

 

[cksh]

I don't think it is any crazier than what most of my companies have done: Make up a new job title with a different pay scale.

I can be promoted one more time before reaching supervisor. But I will still do the same job. Even two levels below me the job responsibilites are the same. I don't really care what they call me as long as my pay goes up. My supervisors have the same job as me with the added responsibility of keeping track of my vaction and some open issues. Although I do like that they act as a filter between me and upper management.

 

[Waidesworld]

We recently hired a new temp in shipping. Within a few weeks he outshone everyone in the department. The company asked if he was interested in staying on and he asked about promotions down the road. He was told that this was the only position and nothing else would be above it. We lost him...

Problem was that last year we let the shipping manager go and shipping was merged into logistics. There's a need for a shipping manager which is obvious to one and all except those who make decisions and spend the money. But losing this one guy will be a terrible mistake. It has been pointed out but not taken into "real" consideration.

drawn to design, designed to draw

 

[floattuber]

Thanks for the input...it's interesting to see how other companies handle promotions.

The rule is for any kind of promotion, whether it's a completely different job or one where the job is essentially the same but just more responsibility and pay.

The company is not a consulting company and we do not "re-bid" for new jobs or projects.

 

[HgTX]

What I was talking about was steps within essentially the same job, not trying to gain a level on the org chart. Sure, if my manager leaves and I want his job, then I should have to compete for that open slot--and my current job is unaffected should I lose that competition. But changing from "Engineer I" to "Engineer II" shouldn't be a competitive matter.

floattuber, what do they do if you compete for the next level of your job and don't get it? Are you then out of a job completely? Or do they now have two people where they used to have one?

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[moltenmetal]

Hmm, it might be nice if we could make everyone in the company re-apply for their EXISTING jobs, as well as potential promotions, say every five years or so. They'd have to interview a few candidates from outside the company at the same time to make it really interesting. I'm sure a few demotions and out-right dismissals would result!

 

[SomptingGuy]

We have that here already. The redundancy process. Every few years the company feels the need to downsize, so people get interviewed to retain the job they hold. People who fail the interview get first pick of applying for (usually less senior) open positions elsewhere. Sometimes it's even joing the same job with a demotion and a pay cut.

- Steve