There's probably a major morale hit if you get thrown into training ("Oh actually you're not useful to us right now, go back to square 1"). Also now you're running a retraining program, which can be hard.

Now I think that if you're a large company, having this venue open, and letting basically anyone apply for retraining to another skill set is a good idea. But I think it's not obvious to execute, and involves a lot of risk.

Getting a CPA would have been a very long road for a person with an associates, and they likely needed to replace her with one or more CPAs right now, not in 2+X years.

That said, it's hard to imagine there wasn't something she could have done, somewhere in the company.

That's why demotion, or reassignments that amount to demotion, needs to be destigmatized and seen as a rational, practical realignment of skills and requirements instead of as a black mark of shame. Have you promoted an excellent worker past their level of competence? Simple-demote them! Everyone leaves happy.

Most employees will not want to admit that they're incompetent at what they're doing, nor will they want a demotion. A promotion gives a sensen of entitlement, and if an individual actively strived for a position they will not want to let it go.

Now if someone was given a random promotion and it turned out to be a bad fit, that individual may be more willing to step back down.

I'd wager that most people desire promotions for the increase in compensation, not responsibilities. Perhaps a slight decoupling of promotions and raises is in order.

This inevitably becomes "just get more raises" though. Very few would accept an increase in responsibilities (and the correlated increase in risk that you'll not be very good at your new job) without a comparable increase in salary, even if it comes with a shiny new title.

No need to give more raises--just make them independent of promotion. If you get promoted and do an satisfactory job in your new role, /then/ you get a raise. Otherwise you go back to your old role with no change in compensation. People are willing to take a risk that they won't be good at their new job as long as the downside is limited to demotion without a decrease in compensation.

Companies also hire higher level positions above current employees all the time. I don't know the details that would make them need to only replace one employee instead of getting another employee but that would've been another solution.

You're assuming that everyone wants a path forward. Some of us value stability and security.

If someone told me "if you come work for us, you'll be employed for life and guaranteed at least a cost-of-living adjustment each year, but you'll never see a promotion even once", I'd take it in a heartbeat.

They accepted the promotion.

> Except for the employee who has zero path forward at the company.

Not if you destigmatize it. They weren't a good fit for that particular role, or they didn't have the right skills yet. That doesn't mean they have no path upwards.

Why do you "need a path forward"? If staying at your current position indefinitely is how you can best contribute, what exactly is the problem? Up-or-out is a silly, outdated paradigm that may have been suited for Cold War militaries but certainly not for civilian companies today.