Too valuable to move up.
Imagine a head of division whose annual reviews have gone exceptionally well for three years. The results are right. Her team delivers. When difficult projects come up, her name is mentioned first. The next career step is also discussed. Only there is never a date for it.
First the reorganisation has to be completed. Then the new leadership team needs stability. Finally there is another project for which she is indispensable. Each argument sounds reasonable on its own. Together they add up to a career that has been circling the same point for years.
Such a situation raises an uncomfortable question: can your own performance contribute to you standing still professionally?
When good performance creates a conflict of interest
The economist Ingrid Haegele examines this problem under the term “talent hoarding”. Her study, published in August 2026 in the American Economic Review, combines personnel data and surveys from a large industrial company. Three quarters of the managers surveyed reported this behaviour. The analysis also shows that it inhibits internal applications and thus makes career development harder. This is a finding from one company, not a rate for Switzerland. [1]
Haegele explains the operational logic behind it in a conversation with the American Economic Association: managers bear the immediate costs when good employees leave their team. The benefit of an internal move, on the other hand, may arise in another area. If mainly the results of one’s own team are rewarded, talent development and self-interest come into conflict. [2]
For our imaginary head of division, this perspective changes the original question. Until now she has been asking what additional performance she still needs to deliver. Now she should also check whether a path exists at all on which this performance can lead to a new role.
This requires no insinuation towards her superior. A missing budget, an unresolved succession or a target position that really is unsuitable can be good reasons for a delay. What matters is whether the obstacles can be named concretely and worked on. If each conversation only produces a new precondition, patience turns into a decision without a verifiable basis.
Why this is relevant for Swiss executives
Internal development is a real career path at Swiss executive level. According to the schillingreport 2026, 61 per cent of the executive board members of SMI companies examined were already employed by the same company before their appointment. The figure describes their career so far; it says nothing about the individual probability of a promotion. [3]
For someone who has been doing good work for years, it therefore makes sense to examine internal opportunities seriously. But that takes more than the personal assurance that “we still have big plans for you”.
A reliable perspective needs a role for which there is a need. It needs people who decide on the appointment. And it needs a comprehensible path from today’s area of responsibility to that role. If one of these points is missing, the gap can at least be named. If all three are missing, you should adjust your own planning accordingly.
Four questions for the next development conversation
What concrete responsibility should my next step include? A higher title alone is of little help. It should be clear which decisions, results or employees could fall within your own responsibility in future. A move at the same hierarchical level can also make sense if it opens up the desired experience.
Who needs to support this step? The direct manager is an important voice. For a new function, the receiving unit, HR or a higher-level body are often needed as well. Clarify whether these people know your ambitions and your suitability, and whether a joint conversation is already possible.
How do we create the conditions for an orderly handover? Those who are hard to replace can actively work on part of the problem: distributing responsibility, developing a deputy, documenting processes. Such preparation should be linked to a concrete agreement about the next step. Otherwise additional tasks arise while your own perspective remains unchanged.
By when will we make which decision? A sensible date can mark a review, a conversation with the target department or the decision on an application. Nobody has to promise a position that does not yet exist. But it should be possible to establish at an agreed point in time whether progress has been made.
These questions are a suggestion for your own decision-making. They are not a psychological test for diagnosing a superior’s intentions. Their value lies in turning a general hope into conditions that can be discussed.
What good leadership can make possible
A second recent study shows what difference leadership can make in this respect. In the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Virginia Minni examines eleven years of personnel data from a multinational company. Her results show that the managers identified in the study as particularly successful encourage internal moves and thus improve the longer-term development and productivity of their employees. Here too, the study concerns a single company, not a general formula for success at every hierarchical level. [4]
For HR managers, this results in a practical review task: how does it become visible in your own company that a manager is preparing people for bigger or more suitable roles? Does a department receive support when it lets someone move on internally? And can employees discuss their prospects with a neutral body?
A simple start would be to look, in development conversations, also at the people who have left a team: what roles do they hold today? How was their move accompanied? Where was a handover repeatedly postponed? Such questions can show whether the declared development offer holds up in everyday life.
Your own future needs a verifiable plan
For the head of division in our example, a good outcome could mean staying with the company. Perhaps a new role can be agreed as soon as the handover is organised. But perhaps the conversation also shows that there is no room planned for her next step in the foreseeable future.
Either is more helpful than another year with an open promise.
Career reorientation can therefore begin while the current role is going well. You can clarify your own direction, explore external opportunities and carefully assess an internal perspective without resigning prematurely. The decision gains in quality when it rests on concrete opportunities and on your own goals.
Being valued is valuable. For the rest of your career, what also counts is the development that can come from it.
At Grass & Partner, we accompany executives and senior managers in their career assessment and reorientation. If your next role has been announced for a long time but remains unclear, we support you in weighing internal and external perspectives and in developing a viable next step. Talk to us about your professional future.
Get in touchSources
1. Ingrid Haegele (2026): “Talent Hoarding in Organizations”, American Economic Review, 116(8), 3110–3151.
2. American Economic Association (26 August 2026): “When managers try to keep their best workers from moving into other departments”, interview with Ingrid Haegele.
3. guido schilling ag: schillingreport 2026, section 7.2, experience of SMI board members. Reference date: 31 December 2025.
4. Virginia Minni (2026): “Making the Invisible Hand Visible: Managers and the Allocation of Workers to Jobs”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 141(3), 1871–1920.