Which technique is commonly used for evaluating past performance in promotions?

The technique of evaluating past performance in promotions through experience is highly regarded because it provides a comprehensive view of an individual's operational competency, decision-making skills, and overall effectiveness in their role. Evaluating based on experience allows the promotion decision to be grounded in real-world performance, taking into account the accomplishments, challenges faced, and the skills developed over time in relevant tasks.

This method emphasizes the importance of documented and validated contributions of employees in their past positions, often reflecting a trajectory of growth and learning that can be critical for understanding how well an individual may handle additional responsibilities. It recognizes that someone who has successfully navigated their role and demonstrated commitment over time can be more reliable and effective in a leadership position.

In contrast, other techniques such as oral interviews, written tests, and job rotations may assess potential or suitability for new roles but do not necessarily provide a complete picture of past performance. Oral interviews can capture subjective insights but lack the concrete evidence that experience offers. Written tests may measure theoretical knowledge rather than practical application. Job rotations might give an employee exposure to different functions but do not directly evaluate past performance in their primary role. Thus, using experience as a core evaluative technique for promotions ensures that decisions are grounded in actual job proficiency and historical performance outcomes.