Successful managers and specialists who are in the 5- to 10-year stage of their careers might address employees in the 2- to 3-year range, describing what they do in some detail along with the advantages and disadvantages of their chosen specialty. In this way, they might help the relative beginners to see some of the next reasonable steps available to them. They can talk to groups, answer questions, and arrange for individual discussions with those who evince considerable interest. At this point in a man's career, such a clinic has substantially more meaning than it did in college, and it's quite possible that mutual exposure of these two groups may broaden both, giving the junior men some additional sponsorship and preventing the seniors from making selections only from among those already in their own part of the organization.
The career clinic idea might well be repeated on at least one higher level-the interested 5-year men with successful 10- to 12-year people.
Selecting the Candidate
Adding devices such as job posting, career clinics, and advanced rotation programs to the traditional personnel office methods of choosing nominees should enlarge the pool of candidates from which to make a selection. It should also manifestly open opportunities to more employees. The next step in the promotion process usually consists of comparative interviews of candidates followed by the final decision and offer.
Normally, a manager sees each of the top candidates individually, interviews him, checks out his performance with previous managers, and finally narrows his choice to one or two people. He then proceeds to offer the job to them in the order of his preference. It seems unlikely to be coincidental that most choices are usually men who have worked for the manager in the past or are already within his own department. Administrative directives insisting that candidate slates include individuals from outside the company or department often produce only rationalizations that the man who already knows the organization is best qualified. To overcome this kind of thinking, something dramatic needs to be done to stimulate a more objective comparison of qualifications.
Some of the group problem-solving games used in the Assessment Center approach to selection and development are well worth considering.1 One way to make use of these processes begins with the individual reviews as before. Then the leading candidates are asked to meet on a given date at a given place to engage in simulations or business games. The conditions vary so that during one exercise, candidates operate within assigned roles, and during another, they must select roles for themselves; on one occasion, they are given tight time schedules, whereas on another, the issue might be one of creative or ingenious thinking with time pressures quite relaxed. The variations that can be used are many and can be selected to draw out the kinds of behavior demanded by the job. A member of the personnel office, the hiring manager, perhaps the incumbent of the open job, and the manager's manager should observe the exercise. What does each man contribute? Do the candidates exhibit different characteristics under these conditions from those they did in the interview? Such comparisons help broaden the basis on which promotion decisions are made.
There are some obvious objections to this suggestion. It may be difficult to find a convenient time for candidates to get together. It extends the decision-making period. Some candidates will object to the obvious competition. All true. But many hopefuls will welcome the chance to prove themselves, and the improved result can be worth the inconvenience and expense. Candidates who object can always be told the reasons for the practice, and if they do not wish to participate, they can remain under consideration, recognizing that part of their qualifications picture will be missing.
Notification of the Decision
The last step is to notify unsuccessful candidates. If an employee is already a member of the firm, he deserves a little more than the usual refusal letter or phone call. A productive alternative would be to offer each unsuccessful candidate who reached the final stage a career discussion with the hiring manager and a professional career counselor about why he was not selected. Even more important, they might review what appears to be a likely next job for him and some things he might do to get ready for it-courses, outside activities, work assignments, special projects, and the like. If the employee wishes, his current manager might also be a party to this meeting. The reason for including the professional counselor, of course, is to prevent the exchange of meaningless generalities and evasive replies and to fix on some specific development and career plans.
Expensive? Yes. But again, not so expensive as it may appear. Not all unsuccessful candidates will want or request such a session. The number of discussions can also be limited administratively to, say, one per year per man. The advantages? The man's awareness of the firm's interest in him is increased. At the same time, his prerogatives as manager of his own career remain intact. The meeting is for him, and he takes the lead in asking questions and ultimately deciding what he will do about the suggestions made to him. Finally, the manager filling the open job who knows such sessions may be held probably makes his decision with greater care. He becomes better trained in selection since he must collect and weigh his evidence in a way that will stand up under the scrutiny of others. This in itself may be worth the monetary investment. As a possible by-product, the rejected candidate may handle himself well enough in the post-decision discussion to impress the manager so favorably that he is remembered and sought after next time an opening occurs.
In summary, then, to give the employee access to a firm's promotion process, it is recommended that employees have standing permission to discuss career interests with members of the personnel staff and to explore job opportunities without specific, approval of their immediate managers. It is further recommended that the names of those who have expressed interest in a position toward which a given opening leads and those doing related work who have been in their jobs for five years or more be added for consideration.
In the early career stages, it is suggested that more frequent horizontal moves be used to advance careers rather than the more typical vertical job-family route. Career clinics can help employees learn more about job requirements and challenges, and rotation programs at the five-year point to broaden their interests and capabilities can be helpful.
When an opening occurs, job posting is recommended so that interested employees may nominate themselves. As an aid to selection, group problem-solving business games among leading candidates will give managers added information on personal behavior and style. And finally, a professional counselor might work with the leading rejected candidates to help them develop realistic plans for themselves.
These suggestions for improving each step of the promotion process arc offered in the hope that they will generate more creative ideas, so that not only are employees better able to manage their careers but institutions will find talent sooner, use it more fully, and thus reap the benefits of greater creativity and productivity.
