These are the habits that are killing your promotion chances
It's true that you're more likely to get a bigger pay bump if you move to a new company. Salary increases for employees who switch jobs can be around 20 percent more than their old salary. If you have particularly sought-after skills, you could expect a bump of 20-30 percent, though figures vary widely.
By contrast, an internal promotion may net you about 10 percent more money. It's not as much; but you won't have to move companies, or get used to a whole new culture and way of working, all of which can mean looking internally first is a highly appealing prospect.
Want a fresh start? Discover 4 jobs currently available
This year, U.S. employers expect to promote approximately 10 percent of their workforce according to a Mercer survey of over 800 employers. If you want one of those to be you, what should you be doing?
Promotion strategies
Experts will tell you to 'grow your personal brand', for example. In practice, this often involves giving your LinkedIn profile a zhuzh, posting your workplace wins and thoughts, or getting some new personal headshots.
You may also be advised to showcase your unique value within your team or organization. If the management track is what appeals, then you should aim to demonstrate strategic leadership by taking initiative on important projects, or by increasing cross-functional collaboration, for example.
Learning and development is another important facet of moving on up. By developing specialized skills or a niche expertise aligned with emerging business opportunities such as AI, you mark yourself out.
Not only are you showing you're keen to learn, but you demonstrate that you actively want to contribute to your company's future success. That'll look and sound good to those in decision-making roles.
When it comes to networking, seeking out and cultivating influential relationships with senior leaders and key stakeholders is often advised.
However, facetime with leadership may not be possible in practice, especially if you work in a company that is very large, or one with a particularly hierarchical structure.
Instead, think about how you can boost your visibility. Meetings are one way to start. If you're a firm camera off person, turn it on.
A Korn Ferry survey found that respondents felt a lack of camera usage has an impact on careers, with 76 percent saying they believe those who leave cameras off are looked upon negatively. Another 60 percent say choosing not to be on camera during meetings is a 'career minimizing move.'
Letting your line manager know about your ambitions is also crucial. Make sure you communicate clearly about your career goals and progress. Saying it isn't enough: you should match that by delivering high performance and measurable results.
Those are some of the things you can put in place to help boost your career and chances of advancement. But what shouldn't you be doing?
What not to do when you want a promotion
According to Jason Morris, a business expert at Profit Engine, a heads-down work culture should be avoided.
'High performers often unknowingly adopt behaviours that keep them invisible to decision-makers,' he says.
'They focus solely on task completion while missing the strategic elements that drive promotions.'
If you're sitting around waiting to be recognised, and wondering why other, less capable colleagues are getting ahead, this could be the reason.
And it happens all the time. 'I see this constantly in business environments,' Morris says.
'People believe that if they just work harder, produce better results, and stay focused on their tasks, recognition will naturally follow. But leadership operates differently. They promote based on what they can see, measure, and predict about your future potential.'
If you are adopting a heads-down approach, there are several career-limiting behaviors to watch out for.
Consistently declining meeting invitations to focus on 'real work', avoiding cross-departmental collaboration, rarely speaking up in team discussions, and completing projects without communicating the strategic thinking behind them can all be red flags.
The good news is that this isn't an insurmountable problem. By communicating strategic ideas and successes, becoming more visible and building out your workplace relationships, you can set yourself on a path to a promotion.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
2 minutes ago
- CNBC
Op-ed: Silicon Valley is dictating U.S. AI policy. It's a mistake that will benefit China
While humanoid robots sparred in the ring at China's World AI Conference in Shanghai, a more consequential contest played out just steps away. Chinese officials unveiled plans for a new global governance body — the World AI Cooperation Organization (WAICO) — aimed at setting international standards and norms around artificial intelligence. Framed as a bid to prevent monopolies and foster inclusivity, the move was also a clear shot across Washington's bow: a declaration that China intends not just to compete in AI, but to define its rules and global architecture. That same week, the United States released its own high-level vision: Winning the Race: America's AI Action Plan. Spearheaded by AI czar David Sacks, the plan outlines a sweeping, three-pillared strategy focused on accelerating innovation, building infrastructure, and leading in international AI diplomacy. It is a good start — a robust and ambitious document — but it still reflects a fragmented and uneven approach. What is becoming clear is that the race for global AI leadership will be won not only by those who develop the most powerful models, but by those who can deploy them when and where they matter most. China's practical, application-first approach — deploying open-source AI to improve agriculture, logistics, education, public health, and other public services — makes its model especially attractive to countries seeking early, visible gains. Its export of utility and digital infrastructure — including power grids and smart city platforms in bundles like Huawei's compact "AI-in-a-box" systems — is enabling even low-resource nations such as Kenya, Thailand, and Egypt to scale AI applications without the need for expensive hyperscale data centers. To be clear, China's approach is not without risk to its users. Its AI systems often come bundled with surveillance tools, opaque financing, and long-term strategic dependencies. But for many global south countries, these are acceptable trade-offs for tangible benefits. Beijing is meeting rising demand for AI access at cost, at scale, and at speed. In doing so, it is turning AI access into a powerful instrument of soft power, one that fuses technological exports with influence over digital norms, governance preferences, and strategic alignment. By contrast, the U.S. approach remains overly anchored in Silicon Valley's commercial interests. American firms continue to lead in foundational models and generative AI, but the strategy often fails to connect technological excellence with global deployment or development impact. Without an accessible, adaptable model that serves diverse needs, the U.S. risks ceding the AI frontier to China by default. With "Winning the Race AI Action Plan" now on the table, even with its imperfections, that may be starting to change. Its pillars — innovation, infrastructure, and diplomacy — signal Washington's recognition that AI leadership demands more than cutting-edge research. It requires trusted systems, trusted rules, and trusted partnerships. President Trump's high-profile visit to the Middle East in May reflected this growing awareness. Gulf states pledged to import up to 500,000 Nvidia chips annually and build new AI data campuses in the UAE. While these deals remain largely commercial and defense-driven, they underscore rising U.S. acknowledgment of AI's geopolitical heft, especially in regions where China has moved quickly to shape the terrain. At the inaugural APEC Digital and AI Ministerial in Incheon, South Korea, U.S. officials took a further step, joining regional counterparts to discuss responsible AI standards, cross-border data governance, and inclusive digital development. Modest in scope but meaningful in signal, it showed a willingness to engage the multilateral arenas where China has been setting the pace. But more engagement is needed. Once the domain of technical consensus, international standards bodies have quietly become battlegrounds, where norms on everything from algorithmic transparency to facial recognition are contested. China has moved swiftly to embed its preferred frameworks, language, and values into these technical settings. If Washington remains absent or reactive, it risks inheriting a global AI order built on someone else's blueprint. The private sector is beginning to respond as well. This week, OpenAI released its first truly open model, a departure from its proprietary stance and a subtle nod to global demand for AI systems that are transparent, customizable, and adaptable. The headline was safety. The subtext was competitiveness: a need to align more closely with what the rest of the world increasingly wants. None of these actions will matter without the infrastructure to back them up. AI runs not just on compute and capital, but on electricity, water, and bandwidth. Training large models can draw immense energy and consume millions of gallons of potable water. For countries facing climate stress and infrastructure constraints, these demands are not just high, they are prohibitive. They will determine who can realistically adopt AI and who gets left behind. China is positioning itself to answer that call. From East Africa to Southeast Asia, Beijing is helping countries think differently about AI access, reframing AI as a utility, embedding it into national systems, and shaping political alignment in the process. Beijing's model appeals to countries pursuing "sovereign AI" — an emerging desire to build national control over algorithms, data flows, and digital infrastructure. With flexible, bundled solutions, China is offering governments not just access to AI, but ownership over how it's deployed and governed. Washington, by contrast, has yet to articulate a compelling answer for nations that want AI on their own terms — not just on Silicon Valley's. Washington and Silicon Valley must understand that winning the AI race means more than winning at home. The competition is global, and the global test is not who reaches artificial general intelligence (AGI) first. It is increasingly about who delivers AI that actually works for the many, not just the few. Most of the world will not judge the United States by its breakthroughs in autonomous reasoning. They will judge it by whether its systems solve real problems — health, education, transport, climate — and do so affordably, reliably, and equitably. This is the true arena of AI influence. The coming decade will reveal not just who leads in AI, but who earns the world's trust to lead with it. —
Atlantic
30 minutes ago
- Atlantic
So, About Those Big Trade Deals
If there's anything Donald Trump loves more than tariffs, it's a deal. So you can understand his excitement lately. Over the past few weeks, the president has announced tariff-related deals with three major trading partners—the European Union, Japan, and South Korea—that have been hailed as major victories for the United States. In each case, America's partners agreed to accept 15 percent tariffs on their exports to the U.S. while lowering trade barriers on American goods and promising to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S. economy—in essence paying Trump to impose trade restrictions on them. 'Europe Caves to Trump on Tariffs' read a representative New York Times headline. In the days following the European Union deal announcement, the White House released a fact sheet quoting all the positive coverage. On Thursday, Jamieson Greer, Trump's top trade official, published a New York Times op-ed boasting that, with the completion of these deals, the administration had successfully 'remade the global order.' But upon closer inspection, Trump's trade deals aren't nearly as impressive as they sound. In fact, they aren't really trade deals in the traditional sense, and they might not benefit the U.S. at all. Trump did prove the doubters wrong in one important way. When the president originally announced his 'Liberation Day' tariffs, other countries threatened to respond in kind, leading many economists and journalists (myself included) to conclude that the tariffs would lead to a spiral of retaliation. With a few exceptions (notably China and Canada), that didn't happen. Instead, Trump has gotten key trading partners to back down. But simply avoiding retribution was never the goal of tariffs. The whole point of Trump's dealmaking strategy was supposedly to get foreign countries to lower their existing trade barriers—the classic purpose of a trade agreement. In his Liberation Day announcement, Trump complained at length about what he considered to be the excessive restrictions that other countries had imposed on American goods—including not only tariffs but also currency manipulation, value-added taxes, and subsidies to domestic firms—and vowed not to back down on tariffs until those countries lowered them. Scott Lincicome: What the U.K. deal reveals about Trump's trade strategy The announcements of the new deals purport to have delivered on this promise, giving Americans 'unprecedented levels of market access' to Europe, 'breaking open long-closed markets' in Japan, and making South Korea 'completely OPEN TO TRADE with the United States.' But the details of the deals, which remain sparse, tell a very different story. None include agreements by trading partners to meaningfully reform their tax or regulatory codes, strengthen their currencies, or reduce the barriers that have long been major sticking points in prior trade negotiations. Instead, the announcements are full of vague statements of intent—'The United States and the European Union intend to work together to address non-tariff barriers affecting trade in food and agricultural products' (my emphasis)—and references to things such as 'openings for a range of industrial and consumer goods.' The main concrete action that the EU agreed to was to eliminate its tariffs on American industrial products. This sounds impressive unless you're aware that the average EU tariff rate on nonagricultural goods prior to the deal was just 1 percent. The main difficulty in trade negotiations with the EU has long been its barriers on agricultural products, which appear to have been untouched by these deals. South Korea and Japan, meanwhile, agreed to allow more American-made cars into their markets—which also sounds great until you realize that the main reason American companies don't sell a lot of cars to those countries is the fact that almost nobody wants to drive a truck or SUV in Tokyo or Seoul. Lower trade barriers won't change that. What about the investments? According to the announcements, South Korea, Japan, and Europe have respectively pledged to invest $350 billion, $550 billion, and $600 billion in the United States (In an interview with CNBC, referring to the EU investment, Trump claimed that 'the details are $600 billion to invest in anything I want. Anything. I can do anything I want with it.') The EU has also agreed to purchase an additional $750 billion of American oil and gas. Those are big numbers, but they might not add up to much in the real world. The EU has no authority to require European companies to invest in the U.S. or buy its products. What the Trump administration touted as 'commitments' were mostly rough numbers based on what European companies were already planning to invest and buy. 'We can't force the company to do anything, nor will be able to pretend that we can, but we can talk to them, we can get their intentions, and we can transmit that as a faithful indication to our partners in the U.S.,' Olof Gill, a spokesperson for the European Commission, the EU's trade-negotiation body, said after the deal was announced. The 'investments' from Japan and South Korea, meanwhile, might not be investments at all. Shortly after the deal with Japan was announced, the country's top trade negotiator said that he anticipated only 1 or 2 percent of the $550 billion fund would come in the form of direct investment; the rest would mostly consist of loans that would need to be repaid with interest. South Korean officials have made similar statements. 'These numbers bear no relation to any conception of reality,' Brad Setser, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who served as a trade adviser to the Biden administration, told me. 'Everyone has figured out that Trump really likes big numbers to sell his trade deals and doesn't need much substance to do so.' Recent history supports this view. As part of Trump's first-term trade deal with China, Beijing agreed to increase its annual purchasing of American goods by $200 billion. In the event, it didn't increase its purchasing at all. If America's trading partners didn't agree to meaningfully lower barriers to U.S. imports, and if their promises of investment are likely vaporous, then the only real concession that Trump's tariffs have won is … the right to impose tariffs. This means that the value of the deals comes down to the value of the tariffs. Tariffs can help domestic producers by making their foreign competitors' products more expensive. But tariffs can also hurt them, by raising the costs of the inputs they import to make their products. Several studies of the tariffs imposed during Trump's first term, which were much smaller and more targeted, found that manufacturing employment either stayed level or actually fell as a result. The ultimate result of the current wave of tariffs is yet to be determined, but so far, since Liberation Day, the manufacturing sector has shed tens of thousands of jobs and investment in new factories has fallen. A quarterly survey conducted by the National Association of Manufacturers in May found that optimism among manufacturing firms had fallen to its lowest point since the height of the coronavirus pandemic; trade uncertainty and raw-material costs were cited as top concerns. Rogé Karma: The mystery of the strong economy has finally been solved The new deals should at least give companies some much-needed certainty about tariff rates, which will help them make investment decisions. But in other ways, the deals actively undermine key American industries. Foreign cars, which represent the single largest American import from Japan and South Korea and the third largest from the EU, will face 15 percent tariffs. That is far lower than the rate American car companies have to pay to import car parts, which are tariffed at 25 percent, and crucial car-building materials like steel and aluminum, which are tariffed at 50 percent. As Jim Farley, the CEO of Ford, said in a recent interview, foreign competitors such as Toyota now have a $5,000 to $10,000 cost advantage over American-made vehicles. Ford projects that it will lose $2 billion in profits this year alone because of higher tariffs; General Motors forecasts losses of $4 billion to $5 billion by the end of the year. The deals announced so far are only the beginning. The Trump administration is currently in the midst of negotiations with several trading partners, including China, Mexico, Switzerland, and Taiwan, and just yesterday implemented a new round of tariffs on about 90 countries, the ostensible goal being to bring those nations to the bargaining table too. If recent events are an indication, any future pacts will be framed as historic milestones in the quest to remake the global trade system in America's favor. The White House will issue pronouncements of eye-popping investments, drastically reduced foreign-trade barriers, and major concessions to American industry. When that happens, remember to look closely at the details.
CNBC
30 minutes ago
- CNBC
Family office deal-making slides with some bright spots in Europe
A version of this article first appeared in CNBC's Inside Wealth newsletter with Robert Frank, a weekly guide to the high-net-worth investor and consumer. Sign up to receive future editions, straight to your inbox. Private investment firms of the ultra-rich once again dialed back their deal-making in July. Family offices made only 42 direct investments last month, down nearly 60% on an annual basis, according to data provided exclusively to CNBC by private wealth platform Fintrx. While the drop in July was especially steep, uncertainty over President Donald Trump 's tariffs has weighed on deal flow for months. Family office investors made 32% fewer direct investments in the first half of 2025 , per Fintrx. For those family offices that are still making deals, tariff anxieties have prompted more, including American firms, to increasingly invest overseas, advisors told CNBC . Nearly one-third of last month's direct investments were made in companies based in Europe, according to Fintrx. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt's Hillspire invested in two AI startups based in Paris, document processor Retab and robotics firm Genesis AI, which also has an office in Palo Alto, California. Robin Lauber, CEO and co-founder of Swiss family office Infinitas Capital, told Inside Wealth that his family office has had a busier year so far in 2025 than the previous two years. Infinitas Capital, originally formed to manage the Lauber family's Swiss residential real estate assets, backed xAI and SpaceX in January and March, respectively, through its secondaries arm Opportuna. He told CNBC that he expects three portfolio companies to go public on Swedish or German exchanges by the end of the year. In July, Infinitas made its 12th direct startup investment of 2025, co-leading a $5 million pre-Series A round for Berlin-based lingerie and hosiery brand Saint Sass. The funds will be used to launch new categories like swimwear and expand further into the U.S. and U.K. Despite the market volatility, Lauber has a positive outlook, citing recent record IPOs and the likelihood of interest rate cuts in the U.S. He also anticipates that the Trump administration will moderate its economic policy before the midterm elections in 2026. "We are actually quite optimistic about the current environment and investing now," said the 32-year-old third-generation heir. "From an allocation point of view, I think it's actually a good time." Infinitas has also been able to make opportunistic investments thanks to the market turmoil. Infinitas-backed Kanaan Sellers Group, a conglomerate of ecommerce brands spanning kitchen appliances and outdoor furniture, has been able to "roll up assets really nicely," he said. "VCs or more institutional startup investors have been very reluctant to deploy into consumer businesses and asset-heavy businesses lately," he said. "These companies have had to adapt and look for more patient capital raising from family offices and high-net-worth individuals."
