I was sitting down at Bryant Park in New York City, having a strawberry daiquiri and eating fried calamari at noon on a Friday in the middle of the summer with my fellow public accounting interns. Life was good.

You don’t even mind being dressed up in business casual attire when you’re getting paid $25 per hour to be there (internship programs usually let out early after Friday morning team-building sessions), especially while all your friends were working their menial summer jobs. Honestly, I was proud to be part of the corporate America grind, on the train with other professionals for the morning commute.

My identity very much so embraced the essence of a modern day yuppie (Young Urban Professional) for those not familiar with the term that boomed in the 1980s. I’d even started wearing argyle fashion, got custom dress shirts with my initials embroidered, and became a coffee enthusiast.

I recall thinking, “I’m going to be on the fast path and make partner in 10 years,” whilst having never done any real work beyond rolling forward workpapers, highlighting unreconciled cells on spreadsheets and gathering team lunch orders. The dream felt very real, and while 10 years is a pipedream at any national size firm and larger, I was convinced that I’d be quickly climbing the ladder in front of me.

But then came my actual first real engagement … where if I didn’t know something, I had to figure it out, not just highlight it and pass it on. 

I did eventually get the hang of it, but not before my expectations of my career path shifted.

The traditional ladder sales pitch

Almost every one of us who came through the major public accounting firm “farm system” has heard it: Every five years or so, you can see your salary double. Associate 1 and 2. Senior 1, 2 and 3. Manager, experienced manager, senior manager, partner, MD or principal. The corporate ladder was very clear and transparent, which is probably the reason why so many of us went into accounting.

We’re naturally risk averse — this isn’t a secret. We like predictability, and nothing is more predictable than the past (we leave the financial forecasting to the more risky budgeting folks). It’s not just in knowing the black and white technical details of accounting, but it’s in our careers as well. We want to know what comes next.

That’s why public accounting was always so appealing — you know if you just dig in and grind it out, you’ll get a predictable raise and follow a steady promotion path.

With the injection of private equity into the profession, though, it’s not shocking that there may be a revisiting of how this ladder works.

The three employee types

Well before PE got on the scene, I’d begun preaching one of the core elements to my thought leadership paradigm: the three types of employees. 

The three types of employees are the technician, manager and leader (sometimes referred to as the entrepreneur). 

The technician is the person who is really good at doing the core work of the operation — think of your best senior associate on an audit or tax engagement. They minimize review notes, can be relied on to get the engagement done cleanly, and are always in the top percentile of utilization rates.

The manager is the person whom employees can turn to when they’re stressed. They are specially skilled in providing a calm and collected demeanor to the room, and create a sense of confidence that “we can do this.” Simply put, they are really good at understanding and managing people, keeping the engagement rolling, and reporting on how things are going.

The leader is the visionary of the group, who finds a way to get innovative with problem-solving. They think creatively about work, how to get it done and why it needs to get done. Oftentimes they are building the brand, doing business development, fostering partnerships and alliances, and designing strategic initiative campaigns. 

This theory resonated with me, so I adopted, iterated and refined it — especially because I had firsthand experience with the alternative. 

As I mentioned earlier, I originally was set on making partner, and I had many leaders tell me I would make a great one. Anyone who knows me gets my outgoing and charismatic personality type, which is considered a bit rare in the accounting world. This is exactly what makes for a successful partner, because you’re selling and doing business development.

My problem, however, was that I didn’t have what it took to handle the 10+ years of technical grind, essentially keeping my personality in a box so I could focus on the work tasks at hand, only to then finally be able to whip it out a decade later. 

It got me thinking about the corporate ladder and promotion structure, which I later realized applies to all professions, not just accounting. 

Here’s how the old structure works:

The best technicians (associates) get promoted to manager. The best managers get promoted to leadership (partners). The best leaders steer the business.

The problem? Being the best in one area doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to be the best in the next area … in fact, you could be worse.

Getting innovative with it

So now that you’ve got the context, the natural query is: so what do we change to?

Well, I was told I’d make for a great (leader) partner, but my problem was that in order to get there, I’d first have to prove I was the best technician (audit senior) and then the best manager. These two skill areas were not as much in my wheelhouse as my innovative and creative talents — so I’d either struggle and stress my way through to get to that position, or there’d need to be a different ladder to climb.

What if the alternative ladder offered paths that lent themselves to the person’s strong suite? 

Right now, everyone wants to take the promotion to manager, because it means more money and status … but being a manager is an entirely different skill set! That’s why you have really bad managers, who are in that position because they were the best technician (now they’re just annoying micromanagers).

The best technician who is not good at managing people shouldn’t be a manager, but they wouldn’t turn down more money or a promotion, so what do you do? 

If you took away the incentive but instead incentivized people to pick a path that leans into what they’re good at, how many technicians would choose to just keep becoming more efficient and effective technical workers? What if there are employees who are excellent at managing people, but not great at doing the actual work, who should just be overseeing the engagements? What if there are individuals who struggle to tend to report-to needs, but are brilliantly innovative and can design comprehensive business development plans?

All of these employee types need each other, and all are equally important, so why not pay them all equally?

If you just want to lock in and knock out audits or tax work and not think about dealing with people or finding new business, you could climb a technician ladder and eventually be the firm’s resident expert.

If you find yourself struggling to get the work done but are well liked and a person others can turn to for support, why not be on a manager path where you keep the culture, ensure project timeliness, and keep the ship steady?

If you’re always thinking about ways to grow the business, improve processes and get creative, how about an entrepreneurial path that puts you in an environment where you can be strategic and innovative for the good of the firm? 

If we remove the stigma that one type of employee needs to be paid more than the other, we can start to design this new system. People won’t have to be torn between choosing what they’re good at and what is advantageous to their career.

A calculated move

Right now, it’s a tossup of business success, hoping that someone who excels at one employee type tier will be good at the next one. If you’re lucky, you end up with a great leader — but private equity and the world are starting to rely less on luck and more on accurate predicting.

You might miss out on some of the best managers and partners if your only or most heavily weighed promotion metric is technical skill. 

If I’m an investor, I want my best technicians working, my best people and project managers managing, and my most creative and innovative minds leading the business growth — and I’d be willing to pay these all the same.

Everyone is happy, everyone is doing what they’re good at, and everyone is getting paid for their contribution. It’s a win all around.

I’d argue that this type of ladder provides a better, more calculated path to business success and career success for each individual and the company than the former method, so maybe it’s worth a serious conversation.

One thing is for certain: if I ever am running my own business or firm, I’ll be implementing this approach.