Latest / The Diversity Career Podcast with Fexingo: Inclusion, Equity, and Underrepresented Professionals / How Seniority Pay Hides Career Stagnation
Transcript
- Lucas: There is a specific kind of silence that happens in boardrooms when someone asks why the leadership pipeline looks so homogeneous. It is not usually because executives are actively plotting exclusion. It is often because the company has built a career ladder that only works if you have been climbing it since day one. Luna: Right, and that ladder is almost always measured in years, not skills. So if you missed the boat early due to systemic barriers, you are already behind. Lucas: Exactly. We see this most clearly in legacy industries like manufacturing, logistics, and even some older tech sectors. The pay scale is tied directly to tenure. You get a raise every two years for staying put. On paper, that rewards loyalty. In practice, it rewards privilege. Luna: Because marginalized workers often face higher turnover rates due to wage theft, unsafe conditions, or just needing better immediate cash flow, they can never accumulate that 'loyalty' capital. Lucas: Precisely. Let us look at a concrete example. Imagine a mid-sized logistics company with five thousand employees. Their internal policy states that promotions to supervisor roles require ten years of service. That sounds neutral. But consider who is likely to have ten uninterrupted years at that same employer. Luna: Likely white men from stable backgrounds. Women and minorities in these sectors often jump jobs more frequently to find equitable pay or safe environments. Lucas: So you end up with a situation where the pool of eligible candidates for leadership is statistically skewed before anyone even interviews them. The system filters out diversity not by intent, but by duration. It is structural bias disguised as process. Luna: It feels like rewarding survival rather than performance. Why do companies cling to this? Lucas: Because it is easy to administer. Tenure is a hard number. Skills are subjective. Managers hate evaluating skills because it requires calibration, training, and sometimes uncomfortable conversations about who actually does the heavy lifting versus who just shows up. Luna: But that subjectivity is exactly where bias creeps in. If I am the manager, I promote the person who reminds me of myself. Lucas: Yes. And tenure removes that variable entirely. Or so they think. But data from the last few quarters suggests that companies relying solely on tenure-based promotion are seeing higher stagnation rates among their diverse talent pools. They lose good people because they hit a ceiling they cannot break through without waiting another three years. Luna: Three years is a lifetime in a fast-moving economy. That is three years of lost income and momentum. Lucas: It is also three years where the company misses out on innovation. The person who learned the new software in six months is blocked by the person who has been there for twelve but hasn't updated their toolkit. That is bad for business and bad for equity. Luna: So what is the alternative? Just throwing out tenure completely? Lucas: Not throwing it out, but decoupling it from advancement. Some forward-thinking firms are moving toward competency-based pay bands. You get promoted when you demonstrate mastery of a new set of skills, regardless of how long you have been employed. Luna: That shifts the burden to the company to define those skills clearly. Otherwise, it becomes a popularity contest. Lucas: Which brings us to the next hurdle. Defining skills objectively is harder than counting days. But it is necessary. Companies like Microsoft and IBM have experimented with internal skills marketplaces where employees bid for projects based on demonstrated capability, not job title or tenure. Luna: I have heard about those. It sounds more dynamic, but also more stressful for employees who have to constantly prove themselves. Lucas: It can be. But the stress of proving worth is universal. The stress of being penalized for not having enough time is specific to those who have faced historical barriers. One is a challenge. The other is a wall. Luna: That is a powerful distinction. A wall blocks progress. A challenge invites movement. Lucas: Exactly. And when you remove the tenure requirement, you open the door for lateral movers. Someone from marketing might move into product management if they show the right analytical skills. Under a strict tenure model, they would never be considered because they haven't been in the building long enough. Luna: That lateral mobility is huge for career longevity. It prevents burnout by allowing people to change tracks without starting over. Lucas: Right. It keeps people engaged. And engaged employees stay. Which ties back to retention. When you lock people into a timeline that doesn't match their pace, you drive them away. Luna: So the fix isn't just moral. It is actually good for the bottom line too. Lucas: Absolutely. Retention costs money. Recruitment costs money. Training costs money. If you keep your best talent by giving them fair access to growth, you save all three. Plus, you get the benefit of diverse perspectives in leadership faster. Luna: It seems like the shift requires HR to be much more involved in the daily work. They can't just check boxes anymore. Lucas: They have to become architects of fairness. They need to audit the criteria. Are we asking for a degree when we really need a portfolio? Are we asking for ten years of experience when five years of intense project work would suffice? Luna: Experience inflation is real. People listing ten years for a job that used to take two. Lucas: It is. And tenure requirements contribute to that inflation. If you say you need ten years, you are implicitly saying you value quantity of time over quality of output. That is a dangerous metric. Luna: So, what should a professional listening to this do if they are stuck in a tenure-heavy culture? Lucas: First, document your wins. Quantify your impact. Make your skills visible. Second, have the conversation. Ask your manager about the path to the next level. Is it strictly time-based? Can it be accelerated by achievement? Luna: That takes courage. Not everyone feels safe doing that. Lucas: It does. But silence guarantees you stay where you are. Speaking up might change the rules, or it might reveal that the rules are rigged. Either way, you have information. Luna: Information is power. Especially when you know the game is stacked. Lucas: Now, we want to pause for a moment to talk about how this show stays free for you. If we've helped you think through a career move or decision, and you appreciate the deep dive into these complex workplace dynamics, your support keeps the lights on. Luna: We rely on listeners like you to maintain this ad-free space where we can have honest conversations about equity and finance. Lucas: If you want to help us keep digging into these stories, you can buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Any amount helps us continue this work. Luna: Thank you for being part of this community. Now, let's get back to the mechanics of breaking those glass ceilings. Lucas: Back to the data. There is an interesting counter-trend emerging in the tech sector. Even though tech is often seen as progressive, many startups are adopting rigid leveling systems that mimic corporate tenure traps. Luna: Really? I thought tech was more agile about this. Lucas: It used to be. But as companies mature, they introduce 'levels'. Level one, level two, level three. Each level has strict tenure expectations. It creates a bureaucracy of promotion that slows down high performers from diverse backgrounds who might be younger or non-traditional. Luna: So the very structures designed to bring order end up reproducing inequality. It is ironic. Lucas: It is. The solution here is regular calibration sessions. Managers must sit together and review promotions to ensure that the 'level' definitions are consistent across teams. If Team A promotes someone in eighteen months and Team B waits thirty-six, you have a problem. Luna: Calibration is key. Without it, bias hides in the details of individual team cultures. Lucas: Exactly. And for the listener, this means looking at the broader industry standards. If a company's leveling system seems arbitrary or overly rigid, ask questions. Look for companies that emphasize skill milestones over calendar dates. Luna: Be your own advocate. Know the market rate for your skills, not just your title. Lucas: Precisely. Your value is in what you can do, not how long you have been sitting in the chair. The market is starting to realize that, and hopefully, the corporate world will follow suit. Luna: It is a slow shift, but every company that changes its policy sets a new precedent for the rest of the industry. Lucas: True. And it starts with recognizing that time is not a proxy for merit. It is just time. Luna: A simple realization, but one that could reshape careers for millions of people. Lucas: Let us hope so. Because the future of work depends on who gets to lead it, not just who has been there the longest.