Not too long ago, promotions followed a predictable rhythm. Stay long enough, learn the ropes, prove consistency—and growth would eventually arrive. But that rhythm is now being disrupted.
As organisations compete fiercely to retain top performers, waiting no longer feels like a viable strategy. High-impact employees want recognition sooner, and companies are increasingly willing to accelerate careers to keep them engaged. Yet this shift brings an uncomfortable tension into the workplace—when one person leaps ahead, others instinctively measure fairness against time served.
Will merit-based promotions override tenure-linked advancement, even if it creates pay compression, role imbalance or morale challenges within teams? The question is forcing leaders to rethink what truly qualifies as “earned” growth. Is it the speed of contribution, the depth of experience or the readiness to shoulder greater responsibility? More importantly, how do organisations move faster without weakening the structures that sustain trust, credibility and culture?
Rajorshi Ganguli, president & group head – HR, Alkem Laboratories
Not entirely—tenure still matters, but it shouldn’t suffocate merit.
I believe in maintaining a minimum residency period, because some level of discipline in the system is important. At the same time, organisations must guard against promoting people so frequently that others begin to question the legitimacy of those decisions.
For me, credibility is everything. If I can clearly back a promotion with tangible examples of what the individual has delivered, people perceive it as fair. But the moment you cannot justify why someone was fast-tracked, the promotion loses its meaning.
Another aspect I feel strongly about is the definition of a real promotion. In corporates, I often see two types. One is when an individual moves into a genuinely different role—where responsibilities expand, expectations shift and the person must operate at a new level. That is meaningful progression.
The other is what I call an in-situ promotion, where only the grade or designation changes but the work remains exactly the same. To me, that is not a true promotion. Growth should always come with enhanced responsibility or a fundamentally different role.
So while tenure should not become a barrier—especially when someone has delivered exceptional results and a suitable role exists—it cannot be discarded entirely. Without some tenure framework, promotions may start happening every few months, and that creates chaos.
Ultimately, it is about balance. Tenure should provide structure, but it should never suffocate meritocracy.
Takeaway: If tenure prevents you from recognising genuine achievement, you risk killing the very culture of performance you are trying to build.
Sanjay Bose, executive vice president – HR & L&D, ITC Hotels
It depends—there’s no universal answer.
In my view, promotions cannot follow a single universal rule. The decision must always reflect the context of the role, the business environment and what the organisation needs at that moment.
There are roles where inherent capability becomes critical—especially given the times we are operating in. But there are also roles that are deeply rooted in experience and tenure. Both realities coexist.
For instance, if I am facing a talent crunch, I may need to progress someone quickly to a Tier-2 role and consciously take that risk. When the business demands speed, backing the right fit becomes the right decision.
On the other hand, if the organisation is not expanding rapidly and opportunities are limited, it may be wiser to allow individuals to deepen their capabilities in their current roles before moving ahead. That creates a more measured and sustainable progression.
So for me, the answer lies in situational balance. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ philosophy.
Takeaway: Promotions should reflect what the organisation is facing—whether it requires bold moves or thoughtful patience.
Saba Adil, CHRO, Edelweiss Life Insurance
Yes, but only if structured properly.
Career progression is undeniably speeding up. High performers today expect faster growth, and organisations are responding by rewarding impact, skills and readiness rather than simply counting years spent in a role.
Yes, merit will play a much larger role in how people grow—but it cannot exist in isolation. Experience still matters, not as a measure of time served, but for the judgement, maturity and depth it brings.
The real risk emerges when fast promotions happen without structure. Over time, this can lead to pay distortion, fragile role design and disengaged teams—especially when individuals are elevated before they are fully prepared to handle complex responsibilities.
This is why I believe the conversation must shift from fast growth to earned growth. Progression should reflect sustained performance, the right skills, leadership behaviour and the demonstrated ability to operate at the next level—not just short-term wins.
Fairness and transparency become critical in such transitions. When employees do not understand why someone has moved ahead faster, the organisation pays the price through disengagement, loss of trust and cultural fractures.
Growth must therefore be anchored in capability, impact, readiness and long-term sustainability.
Takeaway: When people can clearly see what growth looks like—and what it takes to get there—organisations can reward high performers without weakening the culture that holds everything together.