According to Forbes, performance reviews often serve merely to confirm decisions already made in private calibration sessions where leaders discuss promotion candidates weeks before formal evaluations. The article emphasizes that promotions depend more on advocacy, visible growth signals, and strategic communication than on performance metrics alone, highlighting research showing women remain 24% less likely than men to have senior-level sponsors. Understanding these organizational dynamics reveals why traditional career advancement strategies often fall short.
Table of Contents
The Hidden Machinery of Career Advancement
What most professionals miss is that corporate promotion systems function more like political processes than meritocratic evaluations. The calibration sessions described represent a fundamental shift from individual performance assessment to organizational resource allocation. These meetings, often involving leaders several levels above an employee, operate on limited information and competing priorities. Decision-makers must balance departmental needs, budget constraints, and succession planning against individual achievements. This explains why exceptional performers sometimes get overlooked – their excellence might not align with the organization’s immediate strategic needs or available opportunities at higher levels.
The Sponsorship Gap and Its Consequences
The LeanIn research highlighting women’s disadvantage in sponsorship reveals a systemic issue that goes beyond simple bias. Sponsorship operates through informal networks and visibility opportunities that many organizational structures inadvertently restrict. The real problem isn’t just that women have fewer sponsors, but that sponsorship opportunities themselves are unevenly distributed. High-visibility projects, stretch assignments, and cross-functional exposure – the very experiences that create sponsorship opportunities – often get allocated through existing relationship networks, creating a self-perpetuating cycle. This dynamic explains why merit alone rarely determines advancement.
The Unseen Risks in Promotion Strategies
While the article’s advice about signaling ambition and seeking advocates seems sound, it overlooks significant organizational risks. Employees who too aggressively pursue cross-functional visibility or advocate for themselves can trigger internal political backlash. The concept of management includes inherent tensions between developing talent and maintaining operational stability. Managers facing pressure to retain top performers may consciously or unconsciously limit advancement opportunities. Additionally, research from the Journal of Applied Psychology suggests that visibility strategies can backfire when not aligned with organizational culture, potentially labeling employees as “political” rather than “promotable.”
Beyond Individual Strategies: Systemic Solutions
The fundamental issue lies in treating promotion systems as transparent when they’re inherently opaque. Organizations serious about meritocratic advancement need to address the structural problems in their power dynamics and decision processes. This includes creating formal sponsorship programs, establishing clear advancement criteria beyond manager discretion, and implementing transparent calibration processes. The most progressive companies are moving toward skills-based advancement systems that decouple growth from organizational politics. These approaches recognize that leaving career development to informal networks and behind-closed-doors decisions ultimately hurts both individual careers and organizational performance.
The Changing Landscape of Career Advancement
As workplace dynamics evolve, the traditional promotion model faces increasing pressure. Remote and hybrid work arrangements make visibility and sponsorship even more challenging, while younger generations demand greater transparency in advancement processes. The future likely holds more fluid career paths, with lateral moves and skill development becoming as valuable as vertical promotions. Organizations that fail to address the opacity in their advancement systems risk losing top talent to competitors with more transparent processes. The era when employees would patiently wait for recognition behind closed doors is ending, forcing organizations to either reform their promotion systems or face constant talent churn.
