Why doesn't anyone consider things like demotion, lateral motion or promotion contingent on an evaluation of fit for the target role? Must we jump directly to "never promote anyone" or "Stalin-type purges"? Are there really so few options?
Doubt anyone will see this, but the answer is simple: This causes people problems.
Chances are the employee is dependent on pay. Their lifestyle has likely inflated based on the increased resources. Their ego as well.
It's almost easier to just say: "This isn't done". Too often the result is infighting, tension, and/or the person just leaves. You may see it in niche cases where people just want to focus on their homelife, or clearly bit off more than they could chew.
In our current culture it probably is much better to just impede advancement and let inflation and technical progress do the work.
I think we can both agree this is a problem. It's actually a far deeper issue than people realize. We have a primary education -> professional education -> professional advancement pipeline.
We judge people based on their track record going through this system, unabated. So excessive hang-ups and temporary failures are off the table. Otherwise, you're going to get spit out of the pipeline. A reject. Now there are many assumptions and your professional value will go down.
Also, this is an enormous problem for people with disabilities or obligations in the household.
