Beyond the Ladder: The Effects of Limited Promotion Opportunities on Bureaucrats’ Career Decisions and Work Effort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public-sector organizations often struggle to provide sufficient promotion incentives, raising concerns that limited advancement opportunities may undermine worker morale and performance. This study examines how frontline bureaucrats’ effort levels and career decisions respond to restricted promotion opportunities. In the Chicago Police Department, strict eligibility criteria for promotion exams unexpectedly reduced promotion chances for some officers compared to otherwise similar officers. This reduction in managerial promotion opportunities led ineligible officers to significantly increase their effort levels, as measured by arrest performance. The increase in arrests cannot be attributed to selective quitting, problematic behavior, or efforts motivated by overtime pay or future promotion. Instead, these officers pursued roles in high-performance tactical teams, which offer prestige and are viewed as a meaningful horizontal alternative to managerial advancement. Together, these results suggest that bureaucrats facing limited promotion opportunities may seek alternative ways to advance their careers and enhance their efforts, highlighting the importance of offering diverse career development options within public-sector organizations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".