You’ve been passed over for a key promotion despite stellar results and glowing reviews.  You have asked where you are falling short but the responses have been vague and unsatisfying, leaving you angry, frustrated and unsure of how to get ahead.  Promotion decisions seem arbitrary and political.  What’s going on?

In most organisations, promotions are governed by unwritten laws – the often fuzzy, intuitive, and poorly expressed feelings of senior executives regarding an individuals’ ability to succeed in C-suite positions. Take the example of Ralph Thomas (all names fictitious) who was passed over for the second time in four years for the division GM job. 

His performance reviews had always been excellent.  His 360 results indicated that people loved working for him and, as far as he could tell, managers across the company were beating down the doors to join his group. In terms of execution his track record was flawless.  He’d tried several times to get the scoop on why he hadn’t been promoted, only to hear vague comments about improving his “communication skills” and demonstrating more “executive presence” and “leadership”.  It seemed to him that the company valued people who could look and sound good in the boardroom more than it cared for the year-over-year results of proven performers like him.

What about Kelly, the candidate who got the job?  She had recruited some top people in the past couple of years but Ralph knew she had a reputation for being tough on her reports and having “sharp elbows”.  To Ralph the promotion wasn’t much of an expression of the company’s leadership competency model “Display ethics and integrity, envision the future, deliver results, focus on customers, engage in teamwork and collaboration, and develop talent.”

Ralph’s situation is surprisingly common.  Few organisations spell out the criteria for advancement.  Even though Ralph had been considered for the role, there were bona fide concerns about his readiness.  The vague feedback about his communication skills actually alluded to tension with peers in other units.  He could be overly competitive and slow to resolve conflict whereas Kelly’s powers of persuasion allowed her to manage discord and achieve superior results. 

She was also known for developing talent.  She challenged her staff members and they grew in the process.  Ralph didn’t realise that his popularity, in part, was due to his reputation for being a little easy on people; he didn’t stretch them to grow and develop.  Managers flocking to his unit were often B players who knew he would cut them some slack.  He was luring talent that was good but not great; Kelly was attracting A players who wanted a push.

The information void faced by Ralph wasn’t a matter of malice.  It was due to assumptions that nobody thought to make explicit and an all-too-human reluctance to deliver bad news.  Managers and HR professionals often provide intentionally vague feedback for fear of losing a good employee.

Many of the unwritten rules for advancement are especially hard to nail down because they don’t pertain to technical ability, industry experience, or business knowledge.  Rather, they relate to “soft skills”.  In general, the unwritten rules of executive management promotion/placement decisions fall into three categories.

Non-negotiables are the fundamental factors without which an executive will not be considered for promotion which typically include

• Demonstrating consistently strong performance
• Displaying ethics, integrity and character
• Being driven to lead and to assume higher levels of responsibility

De-selection factors are characteristics that eliminate an otherwise qualified candidate from consideration which typically include

• Having weak interpersonal skills
• Treating others with insensitivity or abrasiveness
• Putting self-interest above company good
• Holding a narrow, parochial perspective on the business and the organisation

Core selection factors are what ultimately dictate promotion decisions.  These are capabilities that breed others’ confidence in your ability to succeed at the senior executive level.

• Setting directions and thinking strategically; spotting marketplace trends and developing a winning strategy that differentiates the company
• Building and continually upgrading a strong executive team, having a “nose for talent”; establishing an adequate level of team cohesion
• Managing implementation without getting involved at too low a level of detail; defining a set of roles, processes and measures to ensure that things get done reliably
• Building the capacity for innovation and change; knowing when new ways of doing business are required; having the courage, tolerance for risk and change management skills to bring new ideas to fruition
• Getting things done across internal boundaries (lateral management); demonstrating organisation savvy, influencing and persuading colleagues; dealing with conflict
• Growing and developing as an executive; soliciting and responding to feedback; adjusting leadership style in light of experience

In our example, Ralph certainly passes the test on the non-negotiables and de-selection factors but falls short on several core selection factors.  If the company made a list of the core selection factors available to its executives, along with constructive feedback, Ralph would probably be able to see where he need to devote his “developmental” energies.  But since it doesn’t Ralph has to “tease” out the issues.  Although he gets feedback from 360s, such reviews – unless combined with face-to-face interviews by a third party – are rarely sufficient to illuminate the core reasons behind a stalled career.

One obvious way to get insight is to approach your boss and colleagues directly for their opinions.  This might be of limited use as they may not be straight with you and their perspectives may differ from those of the most senior decision makers.  You might have a conversation with your former manager or your boss’s boss. (Caveat:  Don’t go behind your boss’s back.  He or she should know about any contacts with other executives and what your intentions are).

How do you go about making sure that you engage in truly constructive conversation?

Get into active listening mode.

Any comment or body language that conveys defensiveness will most likely cause the other person to clam up or move the conversation to easier (and vague) territory.  Your critical question should be “What skills and capabilities do I need to demonstrate in order to be a strong candidate for higher levels of responsibility at some point in the future?”

Ask clarifying questions but don’t challenge the content.

Be alert to code words and phrases masking fundamental issues – general observations about the need for “increased leadership ability” or “better teamwork” or “improved communications” – and probe further to get to the underlying specific issues.

Finish each conversation with the question “What one or two things – above all others- would most build confidence in my ability to succeed at higher levels within the organisation?”

Keep in mind that changing deep-seated perceptions about you, formed over years, requires visible and consistent effort.  This is why it is typically best to focus on one or two key areas of development.  Think through whether you current position provides you with the platform to demonstrate the needed skills.

Although this type of development isn’t easy, the payoff can be huge for both the individual and the organisation, giving it a deeper and better bench.