I work in an organization where the promotion, as most of us know it, does not exist. A promotion is elevation of position, often out of the blue, in acknowledgement of fine work. That's not to say there isn't opportunity for moving up within the organization, but vacancies have to be duly posted and interested parties apply. The trouble with this system is that employees have to put their pride on the line to apply for a position, wondering if management has someone in mind and if they are simply wasting their time by filling out the tedious paperwork. It's almost like holding up a sign in junior high PE class that reads, "Pick me!" If you aren't picked, it's all the more humiliating because everyone knows you cared...you wanted to be picked.

Some employees, in an effort to spare their pride, assume that management will wink and nod in their direction, offering clues that they should apply, if it would be in their best interest. More matter-of-fact employees are bold enough to ask, "Should I apply for this position?"

As one might guess, asking a supervisor or some form of management if you should apply for a position is rather pointless because they simply cannot prejudice the process. They’re going to say, "If you're interested, I encourage you to apply." But here's the thing: It's not simply management covering themselves for legal reasons. Very often the outcome cannot be predicted and to attempt to do so can really hurt an applicant. I've seen times when an employee wouldn't apply for a position because they felt another was sure to get it…and then that person didn’t apply either. So apply. It's your lottery ticket.

Having said that, the business of selecting an applicant among coworkers is sensitive business and it isn't easy for anyone. No one likes to stand in a line-up and be told they aren't the best. Often employees assume that favoritism is the driving force and that the entire process is like a chess game manipulating lives.

This subject is foremost in my mind today because I'm in the midst of it now. I probably slept two hours last night, and that was only accomplished by sheer force of will. Yesterday one employee resigned unexpectedly, after just four months work. It wasn't dissatisfaction, but a lifestyle change and move that drove the resignation. Yet, it was tough to take because the programmer analyst was very talented...that much was clear in even a short period of time.

At the same time, we were hiring our first DBA ever. Up until now the responsibilities were shared among those with greatest interest in databases. This was a position we had been trying to get approved for years and we finally did it. (There was a time when I would have given up my premium interior office in the former morgue and any other perk I had, such as my white board with indelible marks that no amount of erasing will whiten, for that job.)

The position was posted externally, but we had more qualified applicants internally. Coworkers were put in the position of competing with one another. Could any one of them have done the job? Probably so, especially given time and adequate training. Those that interviewed and were not selected were quite gracious to the one that was selected and expressed their desire to support that person. Yet, I can say with confidence that the process could not have been more painful for them than it was for me. Sending rejections to strangers you've only known for the span of a one-hour interview is not fun, but tolerable. But to people you work alongside every day? Sigh. But the saga isn't over. The dominoes start cascading. A Systems Analyst gets the DBA spot, so a Systems Analyst spot is open. If that happens to be filled by a Programmer Analyst II, then a Programmer Analyst I spot is opened. Each one has to be posted and the formal process followed. Ah, but if anywhere in that line of events there happens to be a strong external candidate, well, expectations are built and are dashed again.

The thing is, employees on a team feel like they have a pretty good grasp of the pecking order: who is strongest, weakest, and in-between. I do think that if I asked 10 staff to rank each other on their team, the list would not be identical, but there would be some definite patterns. The biggest deviation would come from the individual him/herself. I'm not sure, but perhaps it's a protective psychological mechanism, refusing to allow the brain to process a reality that cannot be accepted. In real life, supervisory terms, no one is generally the worst or best at every dimension of the job. This one's the best programmer, that one the best communicator, that one the best at troubleshooting, that one the most reliable and patient, etc. When a position opens, the supervisor has to look at what dimensions are most important to the team at the time. Yes, it can change based on the dynamics of the existing team members.

Maybe the organization I work for is not typical, but I don't know. When I worked for a large pharmaceutical company, it was not unusual (and it was allowed) for a supervisor to refuse to release an employee for a promotion/opportunity in another department because the employee was considered vital to the organization. Just like that. Valuable, but essentially punished for being indispensable.

In the traditional, good-ole-boy organization, job promotions were typically doled out based on longevity. At least that was less subjective, though not always deserved. Personally, I believe that the employees who deserve an opportunity/promotion are the ones who have been extending themselves already in daily leaps of faith to keep their skills current and do what needs to be done, whether or not it was technically in their job description. Sort of like dressing for the position you want, not the one you have, except it has little to do with fashion.

There are times, though, that the decision about who gets what position will be very close calls and disappointment is bound to ensue. How one responds to that disappointment (bitterness versus grace) may have a lot of bearing on how the next promotion/posting plays out.

The only thing tougher than feeling like a pawn in the game is being in a position of knowing there is rarely a hiring decision that will leave everyone involved feeling satisfied and treated fairly.