Last week, I watched a talented professional deliver the presentation of his career - confident, strategic, grounded in deep operational knowledge. He'd worked tirelessly on short notice to articulate his vision for the role he'd essentially been performing unofficially for months. The panel thanked him warmly highlighting the depth of thinking and structure he provided. A week later, he received a brief phone call: they'd "gone in a different direction." No feedback. No development conversation. Just a polite dismissal.

The harsh reality was that he was never going to get the job. The real decision had been made well before the interview was even scheduled.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Here's what I think actually happened: A business leader had already identified their preferred candidate. HR insisted on a "process" to ensure fairness and compliance. So several qualified internal candidates were invited to participate in what amounted to organisational theatre - complete with panel interviews, presentations prepared in unrealistic timelines, and the carefully orchestrated appearance of equal and fair consideration.

The preferred candidate? Given additional time to prepare, additional coaching and access to information others didn't receive.

Meanwhile, my client - who genuinely believed merit would prevail, had invested emotional energy, personal time, and professional capital into a competition that had already been decided.

Why Do We Do This?

I understand the impulse. HR teams are trying to protect organisations from claims of favouritism, nepotism, or discrimination. They're mitigating legal risk. They're ensuring documented decision-making processes.

These are absolutely not trivial concerns.

But let's be honest about what actually happens when we mandate process for process's sake:

We waste people's time. Internal candidates invest hours preparing for promotion opportunities that don't actually exist. Hiring managers sit through interviews they don't need. HR coordinates logistics for a predetermined outcome. As a result, employees are left feeling disengaged and of lesser value to the organisation.

We damage trust. Smart people can sense when they're being managed rather than genuinely evaluated. The charade doesn't fool anyone - it just creates cynicism and in turn, negatively impacts organisational culture.

We create false hope. There's something particularly cruel about making someone believe they have a genuine shot at advancement when the decision has already been made.

We undermine genuine development. Instead of honest conversations about growth paths and readiness gaps, we offer polite rejections and radio silence. No clear path forward for the candidate.

The Alternative Isn't Arbitrary Promotion

I'm not arguing for unchecked nepotism or eliminating accountability in hiring decisions. But there's a middle path between "appoint whomever you want without oversight" and "subject everyone to elaborate performative processes."

What if we were simply more transparent about how internal promotions actually work?

If a leader has a preferred candidate, they should be required to articulate why - in writing, with specific justification tied to business needs and candidate capabilities. This documentation serves the same protective function as a staged interview process, but without the insulting pretence.

If we're going to run a genuine competitive process, then make it genuinely competitive. Same preparation time, same access to information, same coaching resources. Real feedback to unsuccessful candidates that helps them understand the gaps and how to close them.

And if a role is essentially a promotion-in-place for someone already doing the work? Just acknowledge it. "Steve has been performing this function effectively for eight months and has demonstrated the capability to lead this team. We're formalising his position." Done.

The Cost of Theatre

Every time we run one of these charades, we tell our people that process matters more than substance, that optics matter more than honesty. That we'd rather waste everyone's time than have a potentially uncomfortable but direct conversation.

The best people in your organisation, the ones you can't afford to lose, notice this. They remember being made to jump through hoops for roles that were never really available. They watch their colleagues invest in presentations that were never seriously considered. And they adjust their trust in leadership and the organisation itself accordingly.

A Challenge for HR and Business Leaders

The next time you're tempted to run an internal selection process while already knowing the outcome, ask yourself: What would happen if we were just honest?

Yes, you might have an uncomfortable conversation with someone who feels overlooked. Yes, you might need to clearly articulate your reasoning in a way that stands up to scrutiny. Yes, you might need to provide genuine developmental feedback to people who don't get the role.

But you'll also preserve trust, respect people's time, role model integrity and potentially avoid burning out high performers who gave everything to an opportunity that was never really theirs to win.

The appearance of fairness is not the same as actual fairness. And increasingly, our people know the difference.

What's been your experience with internal promotion processes? Have you seen organisations navigate this well, or have you witnessed, or experienced, the charade firsthand?