Menu

employee

The Promotion Equation: Loyalty, Performance, and the Risk of Attrition

by

The Promotion Equation: Loyalty, Performance, and the Risk of Attrition

It is one of the most revealing dilemmas a manager can face, a choice that pits stability against raw talent. 

On one hand, you have the loyal, average performer—the steady pillar of the team who embodies the company culture but may have a limited performance ceiling. 

On the other, the high-achieving “flight risk”—a top performer who consistently drives exceptional results but whose ambition suggests they may not be around for the long haul.

Who do you promote?

This decision goes far beyond filling a single role; it sends a powerful message to the entire organization about what is truly valued: consistency and commitment, or game-changing, albeit potentially temporary, performance. 

In the competitive talent market of 2025, where retaining key employees is a paramount concern, this question has never been more urgent.

To navigate this complex issue, we turned to a panel of seasoned HR and business leaders and asked them to make the tough call:

“Would you promote a loyal yet average performer over a high-performing employee but potential flight risk? What are the strategic considerations driving your decision?”

Their responses are a masterclass in strategic thinking, revealing the delicate balance between managing risk, fostering culture, and driving results. Here’s how they would approach this timeless management crossroads.

Read on!

Ambrosio Arizu
Co-Founder & Managing Partner, Argoz Consultants

Ambrosio Arizu

If loyalty and organizational stability are priorities, promoting the loyal employee may be more beneficial, as their commitment can foster a solid and lasting work environment. However, if the goal is to drive immediate performance and innovation, a high-performing employee might be a better option, although with the concern of retaining them long-term.

In this case, a key consideration is the impact on the team: a loyal leader could inspire others to become more committed to the company, while a high performer may generate faster results but with the risk of losing talent in the future. The ideal approach would be to create an environment where both types of employees can grow, maintaining the commitment of the loyal ones while leveraging the performance of the more productive ones.

Kevandre (Dre) Thompson
Full Cycle Talent Acquisition Specialist, Innomotics

Kevandre (Dre) Thompson

I would lean towards promoting the loyal, average performer due to the value they bring in terms of stability, team cohesion, and long-term commitment.

I believe loyalty should be rewarded, and it usually translates to a deeper understanding of the company culture, processes, and the trust that comes with consistent performance.

Although high performers may bring immediate results, their potential flight risk can introduce uncertainty and disruption, especially if their concerns aren’t addressed in a timely manner.

By investing in a loyal, average performer, you ensure continuity within the team, which can be crucial in maintaining morale and retaining institutional knowledge (that can be passed on to new company joiners).

Lastly, with the right development and support, an average performer may have the potential to grow into a strong leader who can contribute to the company’s long-term success and objectives.

Steven Rodemer
Owner and Attorney, Rodemer & Kane

Steven Rodemer

Promotions are to further the long-term viability of a company, not to reward short-term gains. A good performer can attract strong numbers, but if he is a flight risk, his leaving the company can disrupt operations and morale. Leadership positions demand stability, trust, and loyalty to the future of the company.

An average but loyal performer provides valuable reliability. They understand the systems, culture, and team dynamics. However, reliability in itself is not sufficient. If they lack the potential to grow in the position, advancing them poses a risk of inefficiency. Good decision-making, flexibility, and inspiring others are necessary for leadership. If they possess growth potential, cultivating them can provide an opportunity to create a long-term leader who will remain in the company.

The optimal decision hinges on the larger picture. If the high achiever is already exploring other opportunities, their loyalty is short-term. A company succeeds with leaders who find a balance between performance and commitment. Selecting a candidate who builds a solid foundation for the company avoids disruption and guarantees long-term success.

Chintan Shah
President & Managing Partner, KNB Communications

Chintan Shah

Always promote the high performer. The risk of losing them may be higher–but so is the cost of keeping them stagnant.

Loyalty is valuable, but it can’t outweigh impact.

The best way to retain your top talent is to challenge, reward, and promote them at the pace of their ambition. It keeps them engaged, and it also sends a message to the rest of the team that great work earns growth.

Jo Trizila
Founder & CEO, TrizCom PR

Jo Trizila

While it might seem like a no-brainer to promote the over-achieving employee, I can say without pause loyalty is an invaluable asset that’s difficult to cultivate and replace.

From my experience owning and running a successful PR firm for the past 18 years, TrizCom PR, loyalty, while not as immediately quantifiable as performance metrics, contributes significantly to an organization’s long-term stability and culture.

A loyal employee may exceed expectations when given greater responsibility and also enhance team morale and commitment.

We have always tried to promote based on loyalty, alongside performance, which has benefited our company, reinforcing a culture that values growth and dedication.

Joan Denizot
Owner, Body Ready

Joan Denizot

When deciding between promoting a loyal yet average performer and a high-performing employee who is a flight risk, I believe the key factor is long-term business stability.

While high performers can drive immediate results, their potential departure poses risks such as operational disruptions and costly recruitment.

Loyal employees, even if not top performers, often provide stability, institutional knowledge, and cultural continuity. If they show potential for growth, investing in their development can yield long-term benefits.

However, if the high performer aligns with company goals and can be retained through incentives or career growth opportunities, promoting them may be a more strategic choice.

Ultimately, the decision should balance performance impact with organizational stability, ensuring that the promoted employee contributes to the company’s sustained success.

Austin Rulfs
Founder, Zanda Wealth

Austin Rulfs

From my experience, whether to promote a loyal average performer or a high-performing employee with flight risk relies greatly on the larger context.

Loyalty is a significant strength, particularly in a company that is driven by long-term relationships, such as property investment and finance. Nevertheless, a high performer with great potential might yield short-term benefits, but if they jump ship shortly after promotion, it might lead to disruptions.

It’s about balancing immediate needs with long-term sustainability. In some cases, promoting the loyal employee could strengthen team morale, reduce turnover, and maintain stability.

But if a high performer’s contributions are significantly impactful, I’d work on strategies to retain them, perhaps offering incentives or career development opportunities to address their flight risk.

Paul Koenigsberg
Attorney, Koenigsberg & Associates

Paul Koenigsberg

I would promote a loyal yet average performer if they have shown enough consistency to be trusted with more strategic things. 

However, that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t consider promoting the potential flight risk but high-performing employee. This is very often the case with high performers. They are potential flight risks because they are often misunderstood. 

Sometimes, leaders can see enough promise in a person to actually take that risk just to see where it would lead, even if that meant putting out fires indefinitely.

It all comes down to what the team needs and what kind of risk is worth taking. 

A loyal, steady performer can be the backbone of stability, while a high performer, especially one on the edge of leaving, can either push the team to new heights or create chaos. 

The real challenge for leadership is knowing when to bet on potential and when to double down on reliability. 

Sometimes, the right move isn’t just about performance but about who will step up when it really counts.

Hayden Cohen
CEO, Hire With Near

Hayden Cohen

The answer here depends a lot on what kind of promotion we’re talking about. Loyal-yet-average workers often make great managers.

They may lack some of the raw talent of their peers, but if they’re good with people and committed to the organization and its culture, management may be the ideal place for them. On the flip side of this, promoting flight risks can be a good way to keep them around, as long as a promotion is what they’re after. If I suspect that someone’s going to leave shortly after being promoted, I’ll definitely go with the more loyal person.

Rearranging staffing causes disruptions, and those are expensive. If a promotion will keep them around, though, then it can be a smart move.

Jason Hennessey
CEO, Hennessey Digital

Jason Hennessey

Business decisions should be strategic, not emotional. Promoting a loyal but average performer can limit growth. Losing a high performer can hurt momentum. I would first analyze their long-term potential. If the high performer can be retained, I’d make that my focus. If the loyal employee is coachable, I’d consider them. A promotion should benefit both the individual and the company. Stability and performance should always complement each other.

Strong teams need a balance of reliability and excellence. Promotions should drive performance, not just maintain comfort. If neither candidate fits leadership, I’d develop another. Investing in leadership development ensures long-term success. Retaining top talent is more cost-effective than replacing them. Loyalty without growth is a risk. A company thrives on smart leadership decisions. A strong leader creates lasting impact.

The HR Spotlight team thanks these industry leaders for offering their expertise and experience and sharing these insights.

Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.

Recent Posts

US Supreme Court Unanimously Rules in Favor of Employee: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

by

HR NEWS

US Supreme Court Unanimously Rules in Favor of Employee: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Marlean Ames, a former employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS), striking down a controversial “background circumstances” rule that imposed a higher evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases. 

The landmark ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, issued on June 5, 2025, clarifies that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies equally to all individuals, regardless of whether they belong to a majority or minority group. 

The decision, authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, is set to reshape workplace discrimination litigation across the United States, particularly in the 20 states and Washington, D.C., covered by the five federal circuits that previously applied the now-defunct rule.

US Supreme Court Unanimously Rules in Favor of Employee: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

A Case Rooted in Alleged Bias

Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, began her career at DYS in 2004 as an executive secretary and advanced to program administrator by 2014, overseeing compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA).

Known for her strong performance, Ames received glowing reviews, including a 2018 evaluation from her supervisor, Ginine Trim, a lesbian woman, praising her work in 11 performance categories.

However, in 2019, Ames faced setbacks that would spark her legal battle. She was passed over for a promotion to bureau chief of quality in favor of another lesbian woman and was later demoted from her administrator role, which was filled by a 25-year-old gay man.

Her salary was significantly reduced, prompting Ames to file a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging discrimination based on her sexual orientation.

Ames claimed that DYS favored LGBTQ+ employees, violating Title VII, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin—a protection extended to sexual orientation following the 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision.

However, both the district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed her claims, citing her failure to meet the “background circumstances” rule.

This rule, applied in the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits, required majority-group plaintiffs (e.g., white, male, or heterosexual individuals) to provide additional evidence—such as statistical proof of a pattern of discrimination against the majority or evidence that a minority-group member made the employment decision—to establish a prima facie case.

Ames appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the rule created an unfair double standard, placing a heavier burden on majority-group plaintiffs compared to their minority-group counterparts.

The Court agreed, delivering a ruling that levels the playing field.

The Supreme Court’s Decision: A Unified Standard for All

In a concise yet forceful opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that Title VII’s text, which prohibits discrimination “against any individual” based on protected characteristics, does not permit courts to impose different evidentiary standards based on group identity.

The “background circumstances” rule, the Court found, was a “categorical requirement” that conflicted with the framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973).

That precedent outlines a three-step process for proving disparate treatment under Title VII without direct evidence:

1. The plaintiff must show they belong to a protected class, were qualified for the position, suffered an adverse employment action, and that the employer treated similarly situated individuals outside the protected class more favorably.

2. The employer must provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action.

3.The plaintiff must demonstrate that the employer’s reason was a pretext for discrimination.

The Sixth Circuit acknowledged that Ames could have met the prima facie standard but for the “background circumstances” requirement.

The Supreme Court rejected this additional hurdle, noting that it unfairly burdened majority-group plaintiffs with demands not imposed on others, such as statistical data or proof of a minority decision-maker.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch in a concurring opinion, called the rule “itself discriminatory” and questioned the broader McDonnell Douglas framework, suggesting it may merit future scrutiny.

The Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s ruling and remanded Ames’ case for reconsideration under the standard McDonnell Douglas framework, giving her a renewed chance to prove her claims without the extra evidentiary burden.

A New Era for Workplace Discrimination Claims

The Ames ruling has immediate implications for employers, particularly in the 20 states and Washington, D.C., covered by the five circuits that previously applied the “background circumstances” rule. 

Legal experts predict a surge in so-called “reverse discrimination” claims, as majority-group plaintiffs—such as white, male, or heterosexual employees—face fewer obstacles in pursuing Title VII lawsuits.

“This decision doesn’t rewrite Title VII, but it removes a significant barrier for majority-group plaintiffs,” said Sarah Werner, an employment law attorney based in Columbus. “Employers need to be more diligent than ever in documenting their decisions to avoid costly litigation.”

The ruling arrives amid heightened scrutiny of workplace diversity initiatives. 

Following the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision, which ended race-based affirmative action in higher education, 43% of HR leaders reported scaling back DEI programs due to legal risks, according to a 2024 Deloitte survey. 

The Ames decision may amplify these concerns, as plaintiffs could challenge policies perceived as favoring minority groups. 

However, civil rights organizations, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, emphasized in an amicus brief that the ruling does not weaken protections for historically marginalized groups, noting that Title VII remains a vital tool for addressing discrimination against Black and LGBTQ+ workers.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which supported Ames’ position, reiterated that “there is no such thing as ‘reverse’ discrimination—only discrimination.” 

With discrimination charges rising 8% in 2024 to 21,000, per the EEOC’s annual report, the agency is expected to ramp up enforcement actions in response to the ruling.

Implications for Employers and HR Professionals

The Ames decision places new demands on employers to ensure fair and transparent employment practices. Key steps for HR professionals include:

Robust Documentation: Maintain detailed records of hiring, promotion, and termination decisions, citing objective criteria like qualifications or performance metrics to defend against potential claims.

Manager Training: Educate leadership on Title VII’s uniform standards, emphasizing that bias against any group, including majority groups, is unlawful.

DEI Policy Reviews: Reassess diversity initiatives to ensure they prioritize inclusivity without appearing to favor specific groups. Skills-based hiring and universal benefits, such as expanded parental leave, can advance equity while minimizing legal risks.

Legal Collaboration: Work with employment attorneys to audit policies and prepare for potential litigation, particularly in circuits previously bound by the “background circumstances” rule.

A Texas-based tech company recently shifted its DEI strategy to focus on socioeconomic diversity and skills-based hiring, reducing legal exposure while maintaining inclusivity.

 Conversely, a Chicago retailer faced a lawsuit from a white male employee alleging he was denied a promotion due to DEI goals, a case that may gain traction post-Ames.

Looking Ahead: Ames’ Case and Beyond

While the Supreme Court’s ruling removes a significant hurdle for Marlean Ames, her legal battle continues. 

The lower courts will now reassess her claims under the standard McDonnell Douglas framework, evaluating whether DYS’s reasons for her demotion and denied promotion—likely centered on performance or organizational needs—were legitimate or a pretext for discrimination. 

Proving intent remains a high bar in employment discrimination cases, often relying on circumstantial evidence like inconsistent application of policies or biased statements.

For the broader workforce, the Ames ruling underscores Title VII’s universal promise: no one should face discrimination based on protected characteristics. 

As companies navigate economic pressures, hybrid work debates, and evolving DEI landscapes, HR leaders must balance compliance with fairness. 

The decision also aligns with broader trends, as 67% of HR leaders plan to leverage technology-driven solutions like HR analytics to address workplace challenges in 2025, according to a PwC survey.

“This is a wake-up call for employers to get their house in order,” said Werner. “Fairness and transparency aren’t just legal requirements—they’re critical for building trust and retaining talent.”

As workplaces evolve, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services stands as a reminder that equality under the law applies to all.

The HR Spotlight team thanks these industry leaders for offering their expertise and experience and sharing these insights.

Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.

Recent Posts