“I don’t want to go through the same experience I had with John, promoting someone to a role only to find them flailing about,” Marissa said.
“So, what are you going to do differently?” I asked.
“There is a person in another department, I don’t know him, but his manager says he is ready for promotion,” Marissa thought out loud.
“So, what are you going to do differently?” I repeated.
“I am certainly not going to trust the situation when I don’t even know this guy. I will, at least, interview him.”
“In addition to the interview, because this is an internal candidate, what else do you have the opportunity to do? How will you test him before you get wrapped around the axle?”
Marissa nodded. She knew the answer. “Project work. Task assignments with the same elements in the new role. I had a failed promotion and a chocolate mess. A failed project is only a failed project, and I can manage the risk in a project.”
Somehow I feel managers create this confusion a lot.
If someone does a really good job at a certain role, does not mean that he will do a good job as a supervisor. That could be a whole new set of skills or attitude.
I am in IT world I subscribe to the few that if someone is a good software developer, the organization should allow him to stay in that role (but reward him in a different manner) for every. Promoting him to a architect might be a catastrophe.
The society also hold to this incorrect notion that the higher up the organization ladder, the better you are.