I know of a few people who refused promotions in favor of better work-life balance and higher job security. In one situation the woman's manager told her that she would always be the highest performer in her band given how over-due she was for promotion. That also meant she would get the highest raise among her peers. To S, that was sufficient to decide that she was not going to pursue a promotion and start to work her way up to highest performer level. So she's stayed put for eight years now with a job that is so easy for her that there is no stress associated with it at all. One of the interesting consequences in this case is the fate of the junior employees who are trying hard to break into her level and will succeed through their efforts. They have almost no chance of moving to the next level because they will never outperform S. They will likely not even get any decent raises given their performance relative to S.
When teams have multiple high-performing tenured employees refusing to move up, there are consequences all around. The managers start to look worse because they got there because the path was cleared by the likes of S who were may better qualified. The peers are stuck in limbo because they cannot grow in this kind of environment. When it comes to a critical, high-impact project, S is likely to be chosen given her track record. The junior employees at her level will be left with crumbs which does not help their growth. Most importantly they will not learn and improve. This article focuses on why this trend is emerging but it just as worthwhile to examine what it means for everyone involved in the process - the person who stays in place and collects the biggest paycheck they can without incurring higher risk, the less experienced but ambitious peers of this person who do want career growth and finally the managers of people like S. I don't think anyone is helped by this.
Comments