I agree with Susan Wageman that an organization must provide
advancement opportunities for employees. One of the most frustrating
things that could happen would be to have your boss think so highly of
your work that he/she wants to create a new, higher-paying job that
everyone agrees you can handle--only to find, after the new position
gets advertised, that an even MORE qualified (let's say over-qualified,
for the sake of argument), hungrier hero rides up on a white horse,
sweeps everyone off their feet, gets "your" job, and you're suddenly out
on your ear! How would you like that?

Every job needs a measure of security and opportunity for advancement.
At the opposite extreme from another writer, I believe in hiring from
within FIRST, whenever possible. That opens up entry-level positions. I
believe in paying your dues within an organization, and am annoyed by
the prevalent assumption in museums, universities, and much of the
corporate world that ONLY an outsider has the necessary vision and
perspective for the upper echelons, and the corollary that the ONLY way
to advance in managerial and executive positions is to be able to pick
up and move geographically when opportunity knocks.

Often a promotion is designed specifically for a particular employee who
has demonstrated that he/she can assume added responsibilities--the
actual duties may not have changed, but the level of expertise and
responsibility have--perhaps the employee already works at that level
without commensurate compensation. It might well be unfair to award that
"position" (which is not new, just a redefinition of the old one) to
someone else. On the other hand, it clearly is unfair to tantalize other
applicants with false advertising for an "opening" which does not really
exist. The only advantage in applying for a nonexistent job is to obtain
a "ranking" which may be useful to apply for a "real" opening; otherwise
it's a waste of everyone's time. Sometimes federal, state, or local laws
should be changed to make job advertisements more fair and honest. I see
things from both the "inside" and "outside": a worker has a right to
expect certain levels of protection for the existing job AND future
advancement, yet outside job applicants have a right to a fair shake.
When you apply for an "outside" job, you should anticipate "inside"
competitors whose knowledge of the organzation is a plus, while your
unfamiliarity is a minus--but that all factors will be considered and
weighed. Any job which is actually a promotion for a specific insider
should be clearly identified; otherwise applications and interviews are
a waste of time (and time is money) for everyone. That an organization
would pay to advertise a job, then refuse to consider applicants who
answer the ad, staggers the imagination. Such ads are a sham, probably a
cynical compliance with a regulation. A rule which leads to misleading
or fraudulent advertising is a terrible idea. This represents my
synthesis of previous posts on this topic. I think everyone had good
points, but it's useful to take a broader view. --David Haberstich