Seniority in Promotion Is Not a Wise Business Practice

It's not always an easy decision for companies when it comes to filling managerial spots. In the past promoting an employee has been popularly handled by means of basic analysis of the employees' past performance nod seniority, In some cases, the individual's performance has been considered more important while in others the amount of time they have been with the company has been the deciding factor. Nevertheless, seniority is a standard that has never been left out, However, in the contemporary business world, the importance of seniority in promotion is being destroyed as a growing number of companies look outside of their organizations when trying to fill top managerial spots.

Unlike experienced employees who have been with the company for a long time, new people are mare likely generate creative ideas. In rapidly changing markets, innovative and creative talents are sought by many companies in order to adapt to the market. To meet their needs, companies have more to gain by selecting outside employees since they are more willing to try new techniques and less afraid of breaking tradition when introducing new ideas. Thus, rather than promoting existing employees, it might be a wiser management decision to bring in outside talent.

An additional advantage to this new system is that it prevents employees from feeling that they only need to wait for their seniority to provide them with a promotion. Simply put no matter how long they have been with the company, employees have to contribute diligently to the organization if they want to move up the career ladder, As soon as people realize that the company could just as easily bring in a new person, employees will stop judging themselves against each other because they are no longer competing against their colleagues but everyone in the entire industry. As a result, they will begin to show more effort to bring the level of their work up to what they imagine is a much higher standard.

For students chasing lasting wealth,the best choice of a college major is less obvious than you might think.

The conventional wisdom is that computer science and engineering majors have better employment prospects and higher earnings than their peers in liberal arts.

This is true for the first job,but the long-term story is more complicated.The advantage for STEM majors fades steadily after their first jobs,and by age 40,the earnings of people majoring in fields like social science or history have caught up or even surpassed.

This happens for two reasons.First,many of the latest technical skills that are in high demand today become out-dated when technology progresses.Older workers must learn these new skills on the fly,while younger workers may have learned them in school.Skill undesirability and the increased competition from younger graduates together lower the earnings advantage for STEM degree-holders as they age.

Second,although liberal arts majors start low,they gradually catch up to their peers in STEM fields.A liberal arts education fosters valuable “soft skills” like problem-solving,critical thinking and adaptability.Such skills are hard to quantify,but they have value in a wide variety of careers in the long run.

Why did that happen?According to a 2018 survey,the three qualities of college graduates employers considered must important were written communication,problem-solving and they ability to work in a team.In liberal arts traditions,these skills are built through the dialogue between instructors and students and a broad range of subjects.

I’m not suggesting that students should avoid majoring in STEM fields,but I do think we should be careful of the urge to make college curricula ever more technical and career-focused.A balanced choice should prepare students for a future that none of us can imagine.