> When an organization can operate without your presence for over 300 days, your role may not be very necessary.
For an alternative view: When an organization can't operate without your presence in that role, how can they consider promoting you out of that role?
I've seen people stall their careers by becoming the only person able to cover a particular role. I personally fell into this trap for a couple of years.
In hindsight, feeling like they couldn't do without me for a week or two for a holiday was a huge red flag. Since then, I've been conscious and cautious of this, and actively planned to avoid it.
Anything I feel I'm the only one who can cover, I make a point to properly document the process, have someone shadow me the next time I need to do it, and eventually perform the process themselves while I supervise.
For an alternative view: When an organization can't operate without your presence in that role, how can they consider promoting you out of that role?
I've seen people stall their careers by becoming the only person able to cover a particular role. I personally fell into this trap for a couple of years.
In hindsight, feeling like they couldn't do without me for a week or two for a holiday was a huge red flag. Since then, I've been conscious and cautious of this, and actively planned to avoid it.
Anything I feel I'm the only one who can cover, I make a point to properly document the process, have someone shadow me the next time I need to do it, and eventually perform the process themselves while I supervise.