When Expectations Exist but Direction Does Not

Promotion documents tend to give a false sense of security.

They exist. They are written. They look official. Faculty are told, implicitly or explicitly, that if they meet what is outlined, advancement will follow.

But knowing expectations is not the same as knowing how to meet them.

I was reminded of this recently in a coaching session with a faculty member who did not understand the current promotion tracks at their institution. Not because they were disengaged, but because the tracks had changed. Quietly. Over time. Without structured re-education.

Even after we reviewed the formal criteria together, another problem became obvious. It still was not clear how the internal promotion committee interpreted those criteria. There were no explicit promotion readiness meetings. No shared language around what “ready” actually meant. No point in the process where expectations were translated into practical guidance.

This faculty member had been working hard inside a system that never explained how their work would be judged.

What Was Never Clarified

Most institutions publish promotion criteria.

What they do not consistently provide is interpretation.

In coaching conversations, this shows up repeatedly. Faculty are rarely taught:

• Which promotion tracks currently exist
• How expectations differ by track
• What constitutes adequate versus strong evidence
• How internal committees interpret ambiguity
• When someone is truly on track versus simply productive

In the absence of explicit guidance, people fill in the gaps themselves.

They rely on outdated advice. They assume criteria are static. They interpret silence as reassurance. They wait to be told when something is missing.

This is not a failure of diligence. It is the predictable result of systems that publish rules without teaching how they are applied.

Why This Becomes a Structural Risk

When criteria exist without shared interpretation, progress becomes inconsistent.

Faculty may technically meet requirements but fail to demonstrate:

• A clear academic narrative
• Regional or national impact appropriate to rank
• Evidence of trajectory toward the next level

Without feedback loops, misalignment is often discovered late, after years of effort.

Professionally, this delays promotion. Emotionally, it erodes confidence. Strategically, it increases attrition among high performers.

Institutions lose people not because standards are too high, but because the path was never made explicit.

How Promotion Decisions Are Actually Interpreted

Promotion committees do not simply confirm boxes.

They interpret patterns.

They look for:

• A coherent academic narrative that explains why the work matters
• Evidence of regional or national impact, depending on rank and track
• Signs of trajectory, meaning growth in scope, influence, or leadership
• Alignment between stated criteria and demonstrated outcomes

Trajectory is not volume.

It looks like expanding audiences, increasing responsibility, escalating leadership roles, or growing independence. It signals momentum in a direction that matches the rank being sought.

When internal interpretation is opaque and readiness conversations are absent, faculty cannot calibrate their work effectively.

A Coaching Client Example

In a recent coaching engagement, a mid-career faculty member came in worried they were falling behind.

They were productive. Their annual reviews were positive. Their CV met many of the written criteria. Yet promotion felt distant.

As we worked through their situation, three things became clear:

• They were on a different promotion track than they thought
• The criteria they were working toward were outdated
• No one had ever explicitly discussed promotion readiness with them

Once we clarified the current tracks, the institution’s expectations for regional versus national impact, and what the promotion committee actually looked for, the problem shifted.

They were not behind.

They were misaligned.

The intervention was not more work. It was better direction.

How to Apply This to Your Own Career

If you are a faculty member, do not assume you are being evaluated by the criteria you remember.

Ask directly:

• What are the current promotion tracks, and which one am I on?
• How does my institution define regional or national impact at my rank?
• What does trajectory look like in successful recent promotions here?
• Where is my work aligned, and where is it not?

If those answers are unclear, that is a system issue, not a personal failure.

Progress requires interpretation, not reassurance.

The Truth That Changes Outcomes

Promotion stalls less often because people underperform than because systems under-explain.

Criteria without interpretation create drift.

What to Do Now

If you want support translating promotion criteria into a clear strategy grounded in how decisions are actually made, join the newsletter. Each week, I break down one hidden structural issue in academic careers and show how to navigate it deliberately.