What the data actually shows
Visibility and sponsorship repeatedly show up as major factors. Research on advancement finds that being seen — having face time with decision-makers and being known for your contributions — and having a sponsor who actively advocates for you often matter as much as raw output. Herminia Ibarra's work on sponsorship describes this directly: someone with standing spending their credibility to put your name forward when promotions are decided and you are not in the room.
The Peter Principle has real empirical support. Benson, Li and Shue (2019) studied sales organisations and found firms tended to promote their best salespeople into management — even though sales performance predicted managerial performance poorly, and sometimes negatively. People were being promoted as a reward for excelling at their current job, into a role demanding skills that job never tested. This means strong performers can stall or struggle after promotion, and that 'best at the current role' is a flawed signal for 'will be best at the next one.'
Likability and the warmth–competence balance also shape who advances. Research by Susan Fiske, Amy Cuddy and colleagues finds that people are judged along two main dimensions — warmth and competence — and that being seen as competent alone is not enough; perceived warmth strongly influences whether others want to back, follow, and promote you. Competence without warmth can read as off-putting, which affects advancement in ways pure performance metrics miss.
Why this feels different from how it actually is
From the inside, promotion feels like it should be a verdict on your work, so when it goes elsewhere it reads as either unfairness or a referendum on your competence. Both readings miss the actual machinery, which is a blend of visibility, advocacy, relationships, fit, and timing. The person who got promoted may not be 'better' at the job — they may simply have been more visible, better sponsored, or better positioned when a slot opened.
It also feels different because the deciding factors are largely invisible to the person being evaluated. You see your own output clearly, but you cannot see the conversations where a sponsor did or didn't advocate for you, the warmth judgements being formed about you, or the timing of which role happened to open. The parts of the process that matter most are precisely the parts you have the least view of.
And the merit story is culturally dominant and emotionally tidy — 'work hard and you'll be recognised' — so when reality turns out to be messier, it feels like a betrayal rather than the norm. The research describes a system where luck and timing play a genuine role, which is uncomfortable to sit with but more accurate than the pure-meritocracy version.
The person who got promoted may not be 'better' at the job — they may simply have been more visible, better sponsored, or better positioned when a slot opened.
What the research says to do about it
Make strong work visible to the people who decide, rather than assuming it will be noticed. Since visibility is one of the most consistent factors, the research points toward ensuring decision-makers actually know your contributions, taking on high-visibility work, and being present for the moments when assignments and promotions are discussed. This is about legibility, not self-promotion for its own sake.
Cultivate sponsorship, not just good relationships. Ibarra's work suggests the relationship that most reliably moves people up is a sponsor with the standing and willingness to advocate for you when you are not in the room. Building those relationships — and giving them something concrete to advocate about — addresses one of the strongest documented drivers of advancement.
Develop the skills the next role actually requires, not only the ones the current role rewards. Because of the Peter Principle dynamic, being excellent at your current job is a weak predictor of success at a different one. The research implication is to deliberately build the capabilities of the role you want — often relationship, judgement, and leadership skills — rather than assuming current excellence will carry over.
What the research says does not help
Believing performance alone will be recognised is the most expensive misconception. The evidence is clear that visibility, sponsorship, relationships, likability, and timing weigh heavily, so excellent but invisible, unsponsored work is exactly the profile that gets passed over. Quietly doing great work and waiting to be noticed is not, on the evidence, a reliable path up.
Performative busyness and pure self-promotion are poor substitutes for genuine visibility plus sponsorship. Looking busy or talking yourself up without real contributions or real advocates tends not to move advancement, and can damage the warmth perceptions that the warmth–competence research shows actually matter. Visibility means being known for meaningful work, not for seeming hard at work.
Assuming a promotion will automatically suit you is also unsupported. The Peter Principle finding is that being promoted for current performance often lands people in roles requiring different skills, where strong performers can struggle. Chasing the next title without weighing whether the role fits your strengths can trade a job you excel at for one you don't — which research suggests is a common and underrated risk.
'Best at the current role' is a flawed signal for 'will be best at the next one.'
What this looks like in real life
The advocacy you never see
You can see your own output clearly, but you cannot see the conversation where a sponsor did — or didn't — put your name forward when a role opened. The parts of the process that matter most are precisely the parts you have the least view of, which is why a promotion going elsewhere reads as either unfairness or a verdict on your competence when it is usually neither.
The star salesperson who stalls as a manager
Someone excels at selling, so they are promoted into management as a reward. But the new role demands relationship, judgement and leadership skills the old one never tested — and strong sales performance predicts managerial performance poorly, sometimes negatively. Being best at the current job turns out to be a weak signal for being best at the next one.
Competent, but not 'backable'
Someone can be visibly excellent at the work yet still be passed over, because competence read without warmth can come across as off-putting. Perceived warmth strongly shapes whether others want to back, follow and promote you — an effect that pure performance metrics simply don't capture.
Real numbers in context
The most decision-relevant finding is qualitative but well evidenced: promotion is multi-factor. Performance is necessary but not sufficient — visibility, sponsorship, relationships, fit, likability, and timing all carry real weight, and several can outweigh output in a given decision. Beware any framing that treats advancement as a pure ranking of competence; the research does not support it.
Benson, Li and Shue's 2019 study put hard evidence behind the Peter Principle: firms tended to promote their best salespeople into management even though sales performance predicted managerial performance poorly, so being top of your current role is a weak — sometimes misleading — signal for the next one. And the warmth–competence research (Fiske, Cuddy and colleagues) shows that being seen as competent is not enough on its own; perceived warmth strongly shapes whether others back and promote you. Together these describe advancement as a mix of merit, relationships, perception, and timing rather than clean meritocracy.