Plateaued and Non-Plateaued Managers: Factors in Job Performance

Abstract

The opportunity to have vertical mobility, to grow in a career sense, and to be promoted to higher levels of responsibility, is endemic to the American culture. Yet, most managers reach a career plateau before they reach the top. What happens when this occurs? What is the effect on job performance? Using both self and organizational responses, 384 middle level managers were partitioned into various likelihood of promotion and degree of mutuality groups. A comparison off the pattern of factors associated with groups of high and low likelihood of promotion suggests these groups are independent. A similar comparison of groups with varying degrees bf mutuality indicates these groups are independent also. A comparison employing the source of assessment (individual or organization) did not produce significant differences. Thus, both likelihood of promotion and mutuality appear useful in further clarifying the nature of managerial work motivation. Implications of these results are discussed from both individual and organizational perspectives.

Examining the career plateau among police officers

“…It may be that emotional health has multiple determinants, work experiences being only one of many. In addition, other research findings (Burke, 1989;Viega, 1981;Slocum et al, 1985;Carnazza et al, 1981) indicate that career plateauing need not be a negative experience. Finally, plateauees may learn how to adapt or cope with this career status with little emotional or physical health consequences (see Elsass and Ralston, 1989).…”

External and Internal Reasons for Career Plateauing

“…This decision rule was based on the common rule of thumb that individuals identify the probability of a chance occurrence actually happening as either high (greater than a 50% chance) or low (less than a 50% chance; Howell, 1992). The use of this decision rule is similar to studies done by Carnazza, Korman, Ference, and Stoner (1981) and Patterson, Sutton, and Schuttenberg (1987), which both used "low likelihood" of promotional opportunities to differentiate those who were structurally plateaued from those who were not. If the respondents classified themselves as having a low probability of promotion, they were then asked to proceed to questions that assessed their reason for being structurally plateaued.…”

Career plateauing reactions: the moderating role of job scope, role ambiguity and participation among Canadian managers

“…Feldman (1989) suggests that problems linked to career plateau can be solved by improving performance evaluation systems and providing better feedback. Carnazza et al (1981) found that the factor most strongly related to the performance of plateaued employees was communication about performance. The more individuals believe that they have clear objectives, and the more feedback they receive on their specific tasks and overall performance, the clearer their idea of the responsibilities and duties that they must assume, and the better their attitudes and behaviours at work.…”