Even if there's a single promotion per team per year (and there are certainly companies where promotions are not limited like that), that means that, in a team of 4 people, 50% will be promoted in 2 years. So if you like the job and plan to stay for a few years, I fail to see how this tactics is even remotely close to optimal.
Yes. The link goes into details.
> Even if there's a single promotion per team per year (and there are certainly companies where promotions are not limited like that), that means that, in a team of 4 people, 50% will be promoted in 2 years. So if you like the job and plan to stay for a few years, I fail to see how this tactics is even remotely close to optimal.
It's an analysis based on The Office; maybe read it and critique the 20k word write-up (in the link) instead of the 4-point summary.
You're more correct than you think! https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
The TLDR of the above is:
1. There is usually only a single promotion-role on offer.
2. That promotion will go to the best performing employee (whatever metric is used).
3. If you're not the best performing employee, then do only the bare minimum to avoid being fired.
4. Doing the bare minimum to avoid being fired frees up the employee to concentrate energy and efforts towards jumping the corporate ladder (new project, etc).
Note that #4 is an "up or out" proposition: if the employee fails to gain power/influence in the company, then that energy can still be used to land a higher-level position at a different corp using the "new project" effort as an indicator to other companies that the employee has more power/influence than they actually possess.