My academic background was the framework I used to map my career for years. At the university, passing exams got me to the next level, so I expected that meeting my job’s annual objectives would get me promoted.

What a costly error!

Organisations set individuals’ annual objectives to align with the business objectives. Of course, the idea is those objectives match the employees’ expertise - and hopefully their career aspirations – but often the business can decide that an employee is most valuable doing exactly what they have done for years.

That is, they are considered “pillars” and the organisation is not interested at all in them moving up or sideways. The business is actually better served by their career to stagnate forever.

That’s a concept that I saw perfected in some labs during my Ph.D. in Canada. When you start your doctorate, the reality is that you’re not very useful. Typically, you’re studying something that has not been done before and you’re definitively not an expert, so the first couple of years involves a lot of trial and error. Once you become independent and, even better, start to train other master and Ph.D. students as well as apply for grants, it’s time to let you go – but only if your professor agrees to it.

Compared to most European countries, in Canada, Ph.D. advisors have plenty of leeway about when students can defend their thesis. Some of them take advantage of the system and stretch for years the time their students remain in their lab until they grant them consent to defend their thesis. They want to maximise that trained resource!

Beware that organisations and managers may do that too. When somebody is promoted, it means somebody else will have to be hired and trained to do that job.

How do you spot the problem?

- You’re not getting stretch objectives.

- You’re getting the same objectives year over year, you meet them, and your career doesn’t progress.

BACK TO YOU: How much do you feel last year’s objectives stretched you?