The role of personal and relative job performance in promotion decisions

Abstract

This study employs personnel data from a large university to examine how supervisors utilize information on employees' job performance in promotion decisions. The study shows that better-performing employees are rewarded with promotions as a higher output of peer-reviewed publications and better quality of research output are associated with a higher probability of being promoted. The study also shows that supervisors compare their subordinates' job performance when deciding on promotions: employees who outperform their colleagues in terms of research output and research quality are more likely to be promoted. Subsequently, the study provides evidence to support the key premise of the tournament theory that promotions depend on relative comparisons of employees' performance.