Part I: Career Development, Subject Matter Experts, and the Corporate Ladder
I've always been something of an idealist.
Throughout my career in Human Resources and Learning & Development, I believed strongly in helping people recognize their strengths, develop their skills, and reach their professional potential.
I still do.
Now that I'm retired, I've had time to reflect on some of the things I experienced and observed during my corporate years. I've begun questioning some of our traditional assumptions about career development and professional success.
In particular, I've been thinking about the difference between helping employees grow and rewarding them for that growth.
A Program I Truly Believed In
In my final corporate role, I taught a career development program built around core competencies.
Employees examined the competencies required for their current positions and explored those they would need for their next upward move.
It was a wonderful program. I genuinely believed in its merits.
Helping people understand their strengths, identify development opportunities, and take responsibility for their careers was exactly the kind of work I loved.
I believed that employees who continued to learn, develop expertise, and make valuable contributions would be recognized and rewarded.
Perhaps I was naïve.
Looking back, however, I wonder whether organizational reward systems always reflected the philosophy behind the development programs we offered.
Were we encouraging employees to grow while rewarding them primarily for moving up?
I Was a Subject Matter Expert, Too
My own career was centered on Learning & Development.
I loved designing and delivering programs, developing my expertise, and helping others become more effective in their work.
Yet I also understood that if I wanted greater compensation, recognition, and career advancement, moving into management often seemed like the expected path.
Over the years, I worked with many talented subject matter experts.
These were the people others turned to for answers. They understood their disciplines, solved difficult problems, shared their knowledge, and often served as informal mentors.
They were frequently described as invaluable.
I sometimes wondered whether their expertise was valued as highly in practice as it was in words.
Higher salaries, bonuses, stock options, and other rewards often appeared more closely associated with moving into management.
For some employees, that was exactly where they wanted to go. For others, it wasn't.
They loved their work. They wanted to deepen their knowledge, tackle more complex challenges, and become even better at what they did.
But what happened when the next upward move meant managing people rather than practicing the discipline they loved?
Why should someone have to move away from the work they do exceptionally well in order to be considered successful?
When Good Systems Meet Human Behavior
Throughout my career, I was involved in designing employee development and performance management programs.
I understood the importance of establishing SMART objectives; goals that were specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound.
Clear expectations and measurable results were intended to make performance evaluations more objective and meaningful.
I believed in those principles, too but experience taught me that even the best-designed systems depend on the people responsible for implementing them.
Performance evaluations, compensation decisions, and career opportunities don't occur in isolation. They involve human judgment, organizational priorities, and sometimes competing interests.
An employee's contributions may be exceptional, but those contributions also need to be understood and represented when decisions are made.
Not every employee has a manager who is equally effective at advocating on their behalf. Some managers are more assertive when representing their employees' accomplishments, while others may be more reserved.
And not every employee is equally comfortable advocating for themselves.
Some individuals are naturally quieter or more introverted. They may be exceptionally competent, meet or exceed their objectives, and make valuable contributions without feeling the need to call attention to their accomplishments.
Others are more comfortable making their achievements visible.
Neither personality type determines an employee's actual value to the organization.
Should the ability to promote one's accomplishments influence how those accomplishments are valued?
That's one reason objective performance standards are so important. Managers also have a responsibility to understand, recognize, and communicate the contributions of the people they supervise.
Even the best-designed employee development and performance management programs are only as effective as the people responsible for putting their principles into practice.
An organization can encourage employees to develop their expertise, establish clear performance expectations, and speak passionately about valuing talent.
Ultimately, however, its commitment is demonstrated by the decisions it makes about recognition, compensation, and opportunity.
Leadership Doesn't Always Require a Management Title
Some of the most influential people I've encountered throughout my career weren't necessarily those with the most impressive titles.
They were the colleagues who generously shared their knowledge, the experienced employees who patiently coached newcomers, and the people whose judgment and expertise others relied upon. They may not have managed departments or controlled budgets, but they exercised leadership in meaningful ways.
I wonder how many talented specialists pursued management positions because they genuinely wanted to lead people and how many did so because it seemed to be the most realistic path to greater financial rewards and professional recognition.
There's another consideration.
Sometimes an exceptional subject matter expert moves into management, only to discover that the responsibilities of managing people aren't where their strengths or interests lie.
Being outstanding in a particular discipline doesn't automatically mean someone will be equally successful managing others. The skills are different, and so are the sources of professional satisfaction.
In those situations, both the employee and the organization can lose. The employee may struggle in a role that doesn't suit them, while the organization loses someone who was exceptionally effective in their area of expertise.
Of course, many subject matter experts become excellent managers and organizations need capable managers who enjoy developing and leading others. They also need exceptional specialists who find fulfillment in their disciplines.
Shouldn't we create career paths that allow people to succeed by building on their strengths rather than requiring them to move away from those strengths?
When I Became a Business Owner
Later in my career, when I established Blackbird Learning Associates, I experienced another dimension of leadership.
As a business owner, I was responsible for managing the business, making decisions, developing client relationships, and determining its direction.
At the same time, I continued to draw upon and expand my expertise in Learning & Development, résumé writing, and job-search coaching.
I was still doing the work I loved which was helping people develop their skills and move forward in their careers.
I was also developing leadership skills through the experience of running my own business.
I didn't have to choose between being a leader and being a subject matter expert. I was both.
That experience reinforced something I had come to believe throughout my career: leadership isn't defined solely by a position on an organizational chart.
Expertise doesn't become less valuable simply because someone chooses not to pursue a traditional management position.
Career Development Isn't Always Career Advancement
An employee can develop enormously without moving up an organizational chart.
They can acquire new competencies, deepen their expertise, expand their influence, and make increasingly valuable contributions.
Growth can be upward.
It can also be lateral.
And sometimes, it can mean becoming exceptionally good at the work you're already doing.
Today, many organizations talk about alternative career paths, continuous learning, and the importance of developing talent.
That's encouraging yet I still wonder whether compensation, recognition, and advancement opportunities have kept pace with those philosophies.
I don't have all the answers, and I recognize that organizations differ in how they structure career paths and rewards.
After spending so many years helping people grow, however, I believe these are questions worth asking.
There's a difference between telling subject matter experts they're valued and creating a system that rewards them accordingly.
Looking Back
Retirement has given me the freedom to reflect on my professional life without worrying about my next promotion or performance review.
I can appreciate the opportunities I had, the programs I believed in, and the talented people I worked alongside while also questioning some of the practices we accepted as normal.
I remain an idealist.
I still believe in helping people develop their potential but I also believe we need to broaden our understanding of professional growth and ensure that the ways we recognize and reward people reflect that understanding.
An organization reveals what it truly values not only through what it says, but through what it rewards.
If we truly value expertise, shouldn't our career development and reward systems reflect that value?
I'd be interested in hearing from others, particularly those who have built careers as subject matter experts.
Have you found meaningful opportunities to grow and be rewarded without moving into management?
Coming Next — Part II: Not Every Career Moves Up: Rethinking How We Define Success
In my next reflection, I'll explore how we define and celebrate professional success, not only in the workplace, but also on LinkedIn and in society more broadly.
Why do promotions and impressive titles attract so much recognition, while lateral growth, entrepreneurship, creative pursuits, skilled trades, and later-life reinvention sometimes receive less attention?
Perhaps it's time to reconsider what we choose to celebrate.
No comments:
Post a Comment