DURING my years at an American multinational, my boss told me that I had to be ambitious to be promoted. However, just having ambition was not enough; the candidates for promotion had to demonstrate their ability to consistently go beyond what was expected.

There was no place for mediocrity, where workers would just say ‘yes’ to their bosses. Dissent by subordinates was encouraged provided it was prudent, in the right direction, and helped resolve the issue under discussion. Employees, who would work in the same job for many years and had no chance of promotion, were asked to leave.

The company had a robust, competitive annual performance evaluation of every employee. The appraisal was done by assessing an employee’s performance against yearly goals, which were specific and measurable, and given and agreed with him at the beginning of the year. The respective supervisors would discuss the performance evaluation of the subordinate staff with a group of senior managers, who would critically review the assessment and agree to a rating through consensus.

Those with consistently high ratings were considered for promotion, subject to the availability of vacant positions. Merit, and not seniority, was the sole criterion for promotion.

Emphasis on performance is the key to success.

There was great emphasis on the performance of every employee. Supervisors were required to conduct periodical reviews of their subordinate’s performance within the year so that the latter was not taken by surprise at year-end. In the event of a vacant position at a higher level, the senior management would try to find a suitable candidate from within the organisation, instead of hiring from outside. It was believed that a manager hired at a senior position might disrupt the organisation’s prevailing systems through a rash action, without adequate knowledge of its culture and traditions.

The factors described for eligibility and criteria for promotion include “tenure, performance metrics, skill acquisition, and adherence to company values. By setting specific criteria, the promotion process becomes transparent”.

In contrast, the criterion for promotions in our government departments is seniority; not much weightage is given to employees’ performance, and there is an uproar if seniority is ignored in promotions. The annual confidential report (ACR) has always been a feature of government service. The head of department gathers information related to the performance and behaviour of the subordinates and finalises the report. What is reported is not communicated to the employee unless there are negative comments, which he is required to explain.

It is reported that over the last few years, employees have been bringing ACR forms to their department heads to fill. Once filled, the forms are handed back to the employees, so that they can submit the same themselves. Such practices make a mockery of the system of performance evaluation. Consequently, employees don’t find any motivation to improve their performance and people interacting with them find their behaviour frustrating and non-caring.

In the corporate world, success of companies depends on an effective and credible performance evaluation system, based on which the employees are promoted. According to Leapsome, a platform for performance management and employee engagement, “A well-made promotion decision has the potential to boost morale and inspire trust in employees. A poorly made promotion decision ... can lead to disengagement and resentment among team members.”

Leapsome men­tions the key criteria observed by prog­ressive companies in promoting employees. Cur­i­­­osity is a trait th­at super­visors should look for in candidates. “When an employee asks questions, that’s a sign that they’re engaged and trusting.” Second, a candidate for promotion to a management role must possess managerial and leadership skills. He should be ambitious about managing people and building his leadership skills. Third, the “ideal candidate should know that more responsibility could bring more challenges. They must be ready to handle these and know when to ask for support”, which is never discouraged in professionally managed companies.

Fourth, the time an employee spends with the organisation — or more categorically, “employee achievements made against the time served” — and his experience in a certain role is a useful yardstick. And last, “Giving feedback to employees builds trust, motivates them to improve, and shows that you care about their growth”. Candidates value genuine and realistic feedback.

Deserving promotions will help companies retain their best talent, besides cutting down on costs, and will impact other team members in a positive way.

The writer is a consultant in human resources at the Aga Khan University Hospital and Vital Pakistan Trust.

Published in Dawn, November 19th, 2024