The Promotion Paradox: Why Experience Isn’t Always Enough, According to Suzanne Lucas

In a recent LinkedIn post, Suzanne Lucas delves into a common workplace dilemma: the promotion of a less experienced individual over a long-serving employee, and the subsequent expectation for the senior employee to train their junior replacement. Lucas uses a viral TikTok video as a jumping-off point to explore the nuances of career progression and management expectations.

The viral post, as described by Lucas, centers on a 25-year-old receiving a promotion and then being tasked with training the employee who was passed over. Lucas highlights the emotional charge this scenario carries for many, noting the initial reaction:

“I watched a 25-year-old get my promotion and then they asked me to train her. Here’s what I said: ‘No.’ […] They passed me over for a promotion that I had earned and gave it to someone fresh out of grad school with zero experience and then expected me to teach her how to do the job they said I wasn’t good enough for.”

Experience vs. Evolving Skillsets

Lucas, however, offers a more complex perspective than a simple narrative of unfairness. While acknowledging the sting of being overlooked, she suggests that longevity in a role does not automatically equate to readiness for the next level. As Suzanne Lucas points out, managers often seek different competencies for leadership positions.

“Doing a job for 25 years doesn’t mean you have the skills to go to the next level,” Lucas writes. “Managers are often looking for *different* skills than just the doing.” This implies that the skills required to excel as an individual contributor might differ significantly from those needed to manage a team or take on strategic responsibilities.

The Logic of Training and Capability

Despite this acknowledgment, Lucas raises a critical question that challenges the employer’s decision-making process. If the senior employee was deemed not ready for the promotion, why would they be considered capable of training the promoted individual? Lucas probes this apparent contradiction:

But, but, but, if she’s not capable of doing the job, why is capable of training?

According to Lucas, the distinction lies in the nature of the tasks. She differentiates between the operational aspects of a role, which often involve system navigation and routine processes, and the more complex skills of leadership and guidance.

“Because generally ‘training’ is things like ‘this is how our systems work’ and not ‘this is how you lead and guide a team,’” Lucas explains. This suggests that employers might be conflating the ability to perform tasks with the ability to impart knowledge and develop others, leading to a flawed assessment of an employee’s readiness and potential.

Navigating Promotion Expectations

Suzanne Lucas’s analysis underscores the importance of clear communication and realistic expectations in career development. The scenario she discusses highlights a potential disconnect between an employee’s perception of their readiness and an employer’s evaluation criteria for promotions. By questioning the logic behind expecting a passed-over employee to train their successor, Lucas encourages a deeper examination of how organizations identify and cultivate leadership talent. Her insights suggest that while experience is valuable, it must be coupled with the specific skills and potential that management roles demand, and that the process of promotion and subsequent training requires careful consideration to be both fair and effective.