Where is the Public Service in Career Plateau Research?

Over 40 years ago Ference et al. (1977) published the first study on career plateau which would guide scores of subsequent studies. The concept of career plateau was put forward as a counter point to the earlier proposition expressed in the “Peter Principle” (Peter & Hull, 1969), which suggested promotion to the level of one's incompetence was a management norm. Causes of career plateau obviously exist beyond the Peter Principle and can include such things as the pyramidal structure of organizations (e.g. Ference et al., 1977), life plateaus (e.g. Bardwick, 1986) and discrimination in hiring and promotion based on a myriad of causes such as race (e.g. Jones et al., 2017; Zschirnt & Ruedin, 2016), gender (e.g. Davison & Burke, 2000; Jones et al., 2017; Koch et al., 2015), disability (e.g. Jones et al., 2018) and other forms of bias and favoritism (e.g. Darling & Cunningham, 2023). However, despite the significant research on career plateau, there is a lack of focus on the public sector. This article attempts to identify and explore this lack of focus and argue why this is important. Before doing so, it analyzes the existing empirical studies of career plateau, identifying the types of plateaus researched, the predominate methodological approaches to studying it, the established impacts on individuals who are career plateaued, and the recommended actions individuals and organizations can take in response to it. What follows puts forward the argument that understanding and responding to career plateau in the public service cannot rely on research taken from the private sector and concludes with suggestions for future research tailored to filling the public service career plateau research gap. Ference et al. (1977) first defined career plateau as the point in a person's career where they are unlikely to be promoted. In this seminal study the authors identified the causes of plateau as organizational plateau, with the employee being capable of advancement but no positions being available, and personal plateau, when the employee lacks the skills or desire to advance despite there being opportunities. This study and many that followed focused on advancement or “hierarchical” plateau. However, researchers also realized that hierarchical plateau was not the only form of plateau, with “job content plateau” identified as being in a position where the employee is no longer challenged to learn new things at their job (Milstein, 1990). Other forms of plateau such as “life plateau” (Bardwick, 1986), “double plateaued” (Allen et al., 1998), and “professional plateau” (Chang Boon Lee, 2003), would be studied over the decades but hierarchical and content plateau would dominate. Ference et al. (1977) also linked plateau theoretically to performance, although they did not test propositions in this regard. The authors identified two categories of non-performing employees, the “newcomers” who are not plateaued as they have advancement potential but are not yet performing to expectations, and “dead wood” who do not perform and have no advancement potential and therefore are plateaued. Performing employees were labeled “stars” who have future advancement opportunities, and “solid citizens” without advancement opportunities (plateaued) but still perform their job and are the largest group in most organizations. Ference et al. (1977) believed that organizations focus their attention on everyone except the solid citizens, despite them being the backbone of the organization. Since this groundbreaking study, researchers have been interested in the potential impacts that a career plateau circumstance could have on the individual employee and on the organization. Yang et al. (2019) and Darling (2020) indicate that the methodological approach to the study of career plateau has relied predominately on survey studies that have variously focused on: individuals’ assessment of plateau status (as opposed to the organizations' assessment); subjective criteria (perception) for determining career plateau status rather than objective criteria (such as number of years in a position); and a continuous measurement of career plateau status (a scale of being more or less plateaued) which is superior to treating career plateau as a dichotomous variable. Finally, Milliman's (1992) scale has been subject to the greatest amount of empirical verification and represents the best assessment scale for determining plateau status. Career plateau research focuses predominately on the impacts that being in a career plateau has on the individual employee rather than the organization. The research findings reveal nuanced and somewhat contradictory observations on the impacts on employees. Studies clearly demonstrate work commitment declines when career plateaued, as does perceived employee support while stress increases (e.g. Allen et al., 1998; Lapalme et al., 2009). Decreased job satisfaction and increased intention to leave a job is linked to career plateau in most research, but some studies did not find these associations (c.f. Allen et al., 1998; Godshalk & Fender, 2015). Fewer studies have examined job performance and psychological distress, so the patterns are less clear with contradictory findings (see Table 1). However, research generally confirms the negative consequences of career plateauing. Over 40 career plateau studies make recommendations in response to career plateau. There are three main approaches individuals can take. First, changing internal thinking patterns about career plateau, such as lowering work expectations, tolerating ambiguity, promoting thinking flexibility and focusing on activities outside of work are recommended to decrease the impacts of being career plateaued (e.g. Allen et al., 1999; McCleese et al., 2007; Milliman, 1992). Second, things can be done differently at work such as: mentoring; requesting transfers to new positions; clarifying job objectives, responsibilities, and expectations; having an individual career and development plan; and working with the direct supervisor while also increasing visibility, reputation and networking (e.g. Allen et al., 1999; McCleese & Eby, 2006). These actions deal directly with the plateau situation rather than just accepting and learning to live with it. Finally, one can avoid career plateau altogether by changing organizations and other behaviours (e.g. McCleese et al., 2007; Near, 1985). Organizational responses can also be grouped into three main approaches. The first involves actions organizations can take to decrease the likelihood of becoming plateaued. A good example being the most common recommendation for organizations: increasing job mobility (e.g. Ettington, 1997; McCleese et al., 2007). The second set of actions focus on mitigating the negative impacts of career plateau such as through the creation of mentoring programs (e.g. Lentz & Allen, 2009) or providing appropriate feedback to maintain engagement, especially with plateaued employees who are still effective performers (e.g. Allen et al., 1998) as well as offering training and learning opportunities to plateaued employees (e.g. Allen et al., 1999; Lemire et al., 1999). Finally, organizations can help manage employee expectations related to their career by establishing realistic expectations for promotion, especially early in the career (e.g. Burke & Mikkelsen, 2006; Slocum et al., 1985). Bardwick (1986) points out that almost every person will experience a career plateau at some point. The sky cannot possibly be the limit for most government employees: recognizing this reality may assist employees in dealing with their own career plateau when it inevitably arrives. However, Ettington (1997) cautions it may not always be beneficial to be realistic about promotional expectations: it may allow some employees to remain engaged at work when they fail to perceive themselves as being plateaued. There is limited evidence of the impact of career plateau on organizational performance. Rosen and Jerdee (1990) did gather data from human resource managers and attempted to measure the impacts of career plateau and other variables on organizational effectiveness. However, the links to organizational decline were not tested against objective measures such as company profitability, but rather, were based on the subjective observations of the organizations’ human resource managers. It would be difficult to demonstrate how career plateaued individuals impact organizational performance, given the significance of other variables such as cost structures, market share, market conditions, citizen/customer expectations etc. Darling (2020) points out the lack of empirical research directly measuring the impact of career plateau on organizations makes it impossible to say with certainty how career plateau impacts organizations and, in turn, how responding to career plateau should be prioritized against other organizational needs. Any decision to spend time and money addressing career plateau necessitates having less available to deal with other priorities. Despite the considerable volume of research on career plateau, there is a lack of focus on the public service. There are only a handful of career plateau studies focused solely on the core public service (e.g. Allen et al., 1998; Allen et al., 1999; Darling & Cunningham, 2022, 2023). Out of 72 studies included in the systematic review by Yang et al. (2019) only 5 (14%) involved samples taken exclusively from the core public service with Darling's (2020) systematic review revealing a similarly low number of 6.5% of the 46 studies focused on the core public service. Darling (2020) explored the mix of sectors represented in the research. Out of all the studies for which it was possible to identify the sector of the sample population, 51% were private sector studies. A further 20% of the studies involved a mix of public and private sector organizations with most of these studies gathering the largest portion of their data from the private sector. Only one of these studies (McCleese & Eby, 2006) controlled for industry type and did not find differences between the sectors in terms of the study outcomes. However, this was a single study focused on the moderating impact of role ambiguity on career plateau and the outcome measures of job satisfaction and commitment. A third category, comprising 21% of the studies, involved samples taken from what could be considered part of the broader public sector such as teachers, nurses, police, the military etc., including any groups of employees whose salaries are usually or predominately supported through public tax dollars (e.g. Burke & Mikkelsen, 2006; Milstein & Bader, 1992). Darling (2020) argued that studies beyond the core public service should be treated distinctly from the core public sector for several reasons. The core civil service involves government organizations for which an elected official has control and accountability. The nurses, police officers, teachers etc. included in the studies of the broad public sector category operate at a considerable arm's length from elected official control. Further, the core public sector is generally subject to different forms of legislative and policy oversight impacting organizational structure and the nature of work. While organizational cultures may vary across government agencies, the overall nature and functioning of the organizations are more likely to be similar than compared to the private sector. Often, the broader publicly funded organizations have unique career models as argued by the authors of military studies of career plateau (Cheng & Su, 2013; Helimen et al., 2008). The lack of focus on the public sector is concerning for several reasons. Some career plateau researchers (Lentz & Allen, 2009; Rotondo & Perrewé, 2000; Sylvia & Sylvia, 1986) have pointed out that career plateau may be different in the public and private sectors. Applying the findings from the private sector to the public sector must be done with caution, as the literature has identified important differences across sectors (e.g. Ghobadian et al., 2007; Perry & Wise, 1990). The negative impacts associated with career plateau are likely to be greater in the public service because they are believed to be more common in the public sector (Sylvia & Sylvia, 1986; Lemire et al., 1999). Decreased public service employee commitment can impact the quality of public services and citizen satisfaction with public services (Wisniewski, 2001) that could contribute to elevated citizen distrust in government (Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2012). Finally, the public sector is more likely to be unionized. Darling (2020) found that union members are underrepresented in the existing plateau research with only a few studies (e.g. Allen et al., 1999; Hofstetter & Cohen, 2014) focused exclusively on union members. While teachers and police are often unionized and have been the focus of several studies, these professionals have differing work, organizational and professional practice considerations associated with their careers that other unionized employees may not share (Darling, 2020). Improving our understanding of career plateau in the public service requires exploring several questions. As argued in this note and elsewhere, public and private sectors are different, and the question has to be asked how these differences might impact the experience of career plateau? There are unique public service employee characteristics, such as public service motivation which might impact how employees experience career plateau. Combining measures of career plateau and public service motivation and linking them to outcomes such as job satisfaction, could reveal new insights. These insights could guide the recommended responses public servants can take when facing a career plateau as well as help guide government organizations assisting employees dealing with career plateaus. As pointed out long ago in Ference et al. (1977), the pyramid structure of the organization inevitably leads to hierarchical plateau for most employees. However, content plateau is not inevitable. A useful question to specifically explore would be what are the perceptions and experience of content plateau in the public service? Government organizations involve hundreds of different work units, and the public service might be very well-equipped to battle content plateau by promoting shifting employment across organizations. Governments involve external and internal networks. What role do government networks play with career plateau? Do external government networks create opportunities for government employees to interact with broader policy and practice communities resulting in a decreased likelihood of becoming plateaued? Or do these external networks create their own barriers promoting career plateau? Government networks include internal organizational networks, where more than one government department is required to work together to perform its role, such as cross-government teams established to complete environmental assessments. Job networks can be a key feature of some government positions where a specific organizational role is required to engage with other staff outside of their area, such as a divisional coordinator. Do these internal government networks contribute to career plateau or protect against it? Responses to career plateau might be tailored to different types of government networks. How do the complex government systems and policies related to hiring and promotion interact with perceptions of career plateau and the impacts of being career plateaued? Governments often adopt policies enabling lateral movement for many reasons such as staff retention, job growth through stretch assignments, and acquisition of new skills and knowledge to promote engagement. However, these policies may be constrained by the requirement to follow the merit principle in hiring and promotion. A greater understanding of how career plateau interacts with governments hiring procedures and policies through surveys and interviews of staff determined to be plateaued using Milliman's (1992) scale will potentially enable opportunities to mitigate the negative impacts of career plateau. Ference et al. (1977) pointed out that most organizations focus their human resource strategies and activities on employees other than “solid citizens” who are career plateaued and make up the bulk of the organization. It would be a fruitful to explore how public servants perceive organizational efforts to recognize and promote engagement amongst “solid citizen” employees. Do they perceive too much focus is made on “young leaders,” “star performers” and “innovators” at the expense of the “solid citizens” who are foundational to the success of the public service? While government has some existing data (such as public sector employee surveys) that could help answer some questions, its value is limited. None of the surveys are designed to explore career plateau, with none of them using Milliman's scale to determine plateau status. Any questions regarding differences between plateaued and non-plateaued employees cannot be adequately explored using these sources. Research incorporating aspects of the employee surveys, especially some of the questions used, could be combined with concepts from career plateau research in new survey research designed using Milliman's screening tool and undertaken inside of government. It is difficult to gain access to this type of data outside of government for many reasons. Our understanding of career plateau has progressed significantly since research on the subject began over 40 years ago. We now understand the negative impacts associated with career plateau as well as several ways to respond. What we require is a better understanding of how career plateau manifests in a government context if we are to take the lessons learned and make them work for the betterment of the public service.