Right now, my new faddish pastime is LinkedIn Answers (I’m a renaissance soul so give it a couple of weeks…it’s likely to change). I dig how some fairly simple questions can generate some interestingly diverse opinions. I’ve been posting some questions and receiving some responses that I’ll likely incorporate into upcoming blogposts.

Recently, someone asked this question:
Does past performance guarantee future results? If not, why it is so often used as a criteria for raises and promotions?

I was surprised by the responses. Many opined that there are no guarantees, yet the past usually indicates the future and this is the only option we have. To which, I must call bullshit. This sounds an awful lot like a collective “that’s just they way things are.” Really? I just can’t accept that. Here’s the answer I offered:

No and this is exactly why the structure used for raises and promotions is flawed. Our own successes often get in the way of future success. See Marshall Goldsmith’s book What Got You Here Won’t Get You There.

However, I think what the responses here show is that few organizations have figured out how to build in raises and promotions. So, we’re still dealing with an old system that may no longer work. Here’s an idea…scrap past performance as the key indicator for whether someone gets a raise. Make it based on the number of new ideas conceived during the year, the number of innovations to improve processes, etc. Something that actually is forward-looking rather than backward facing. And let’s change the idea of promotion. What’s a promotion…change from line employee to manager? How about adding work that fits the strengths of that employee rather than just giving a title promotion.

So, am I on to something here? Completely full of crap? What’s your take? And if you’ve managed to change the criteria for compensation and professional acknowledgment, what’s your story?