work place promotions... should it be based on skill or time served?

work place promotions

  • based on skill

    Votes: 36 100.0%

  • based on time with the company

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
HGSR

HGSR

craigslistaholic
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Location
kings mountain nc
i have ran into two different situations where promotions went to people whom had more years of service with a company and absolutely not the skill. is that fair? whats your views on this?
 
skill. however, you would figure that if someone put in enough time they would know the ins and outs of the business better. Plus, the skill set the own should have gotten refined to the point where no outside person could step in over them but politics are politics.

in my job, I rarely get the opportunity to expand my skill set because my boss is a micro-manager. he takes all the projects and lets none of us hone our skills. it's total BS and I'm looking to get back to TN if the opporunity knocks.
 
i should add, both situations are the same. many years with the company and half or less of the skill required to be where they are. there "boss friendly"
 
Skill all the way. Reason I say that is if one is not improving their skills, then one is no more benefit than they were when they were hired. Skill is not always equal to experience, nor is experience always better than skill, nor is skill always better than experience. If one can't do one's job and exceed the expectations, why should one get a promotion? And if one is performing over expectations, why shouldn't they deserve a promotion for being excellent? those are rhetorical questions btw.
 
Both but at the shop its based more off ambition. Skill comes with time and with time comes loyalty so its really depends on the type of work and the individuals drive to better themselves at what they do.
 
Skill.
I know this is a different example than yours but,
Based on my flooring business employees, if you have the time in...you better have the skills to back it, or you are quickly called out for milking my clock. I'll pay a skilled worker twice the hourly rate as my everyday ''helper '' that really has no skill or aspirations.
 
NEITHER ONE

You can have all the skill in the world and have worked for all kinds of hours or years for that matter and it does mean squat.

It should be based on profitability, production or simply put weather you get the job done.
 
we do it based on both..... sort of.

every year everyone who has worked with us over X number of months gets an across the board raise, the people who have worked there longer make more money per hour because they've had more raises that the new people.

we also pay higher hourly wages + commission at different jobs. you work hard and keep your nose clean, you get moved to a higher paying position that requires more skill.
 
well the profit, production and ambition are all on the side of both people in these situations... but iam glad business owners have chimed in on this one. i was looking for views from both sides
 
WARRIORWELDING said:
NEITHER ONE
You can have all the skill in the world and have worked for all kinds of hours or years for that matter and it does mean squat.
It should be based on profitability, production or simply put weather you get the job done.
Click to expand...


I think that the OP is referring to 'skill' as being productive and therefore adding to profitability.
 
It kind of funny there isn't one union member to respond yet! Unions are all about tenure and experience and skills go to the back burner.

I believe promotions should be based on who performs for the company, is profitable and shows a desire to do the job. With all the things equal between to employees then the company should look at time served. But time served should not be the only criteria for who gets the promotion.
 
I'll say I believe skill should get it most of the time. To me, tenure based promotions resemble a union too much.

That said, depending on the kind of job you have, I could see where there's a reasonable expectation of work to be accomplished and if both candidates can hit that quota, great. Now it'll come down to versatility, maybe the experienced guy is a jack of all trades but master of none...sometimes that is good enough, and the more skilled worker is simply a master in one arena. I know in my Dad's shop, we preferred hiring folks that could be 90% independant on the mills, wire machines, water jets, etc, instead of a guy that was 100% independent on one machine.


Another potential reason are business contacts...hell in my young career, I've seen plenty of strategic inept hirings, just because of the clients/customers they bring with them.


I think these hypotenticals also apply to promotions. There's something to be said for the intangibles as well, the guy may be a complete screw up, but if he can get his guys to produce, and the other guy is a boss' dream but can't relate to his team, which would you prefer?


I'm not saying any of these apply in your case, but I could see those being exceptions.
 
Neither - it should be performance based, however that's rated at your company.

Having skills that you're too lazy to use doesn't mean you should get a promotion, nor should sucking up oxygen keeping a chair warm.
 
to re-iterate

'apparent' skill is what you guys are poopooing

'applied' skill wins all, etc (see my post above).
 
I see a lot of the ones with brown stains on their noses moving up at my work.
 
skill and years of service? doesn't matter. Either way will be "unfair" to the others...

there is also people that are there because of who they know or who they are related to. Is that "fair"? Not to the others but in this world thats how it works...


That being said, I don't "know" anyone nor is my nose brown. So I can honestly say that I can sleep good at night that I'm where I am from what I do and know, not who I know or how much I suck up to them :) If its a crappy job working 90 hrs a week, so be it :)
 
Skill? So you are good at what you do today? Does that really translate to being good at what you will be doing if promoted tomorrow? No, IMO it does not. This world is full of natural born leaders, followers, laborers, pencil pushers, number crunchers, etc. I never promote solely because someone is currently doing a good job, I promote because I feel the person can create increased value to and for the company in an elevated role. I attempt to identify where personal excel and move them into a position that creates opportunity for them and benefit for my company at the same time.

Time? I've been here longer you say? If you have worked longer and are wondering why you are being passed up for promotion I suggest looking deep inside yourself to identify what others are doing that you are not. When those things are truly identified with an open mind it is time to make a decision. Either make a change and do those things or find a new place to work where a more fitting situation can be found. A company that promotes on time has to be destined for reduced profits and loss of potential at bare minimum.


It's about the big picture, a total overview and forecast of future potential. I've seen incompetent personal promoted in other companies only to find out later they were inadequately skilled to perform their job. This never ends well.

Good luck to you! Work hard, apply yourself 100% and it SHOULD be noticed and rewarded.
 
uncc civilengineer said:
Unfortunately now days it seems to be more about "who you know"... not "what you know"...
Click to expand...
This completly explains where i work at....that and that the only person actually getting anywhere in the shop is one of the supervisors son who has also been fired an hired back on about a year ago now, and just to top it all off they are both complete morons and claim to be "master machinists" although you can ask anyone in the shop and nobody will even come close to agreeing with that....as soon as i can get my schooling done ill be out of the place the first chance i get
 
Hurley said:
I think that the OP is referring to 'skill' as being productive and therefore adding to profitability.
Click to expand...
Rich said:
Neither - it should be performance based, however that's rated at your company.

Having skills that you're too lazy to use doesn't mean you should get a promotion, nor should sucking up oxygen keeping a chair warm.
Click to expand...

Rich hit the nail on the head on what I was refering to. And I'll have to agree with the other gentleman. Being excellent at a particular "skill" as you prefer to label the quality of a good or valuable employee by no means is a sole reason for advancement. A good solid company one that is gratifying to work for on many levels; not just income, is usually ran by people who realize this dynamic when moving personel around.

As for chiefs and indians. I've been a floor sweeper a foreman and everywhere in between. In the not so distant future God willing I'll be all of the above at the same time.
 
Back
Top