[LucasCollecchia]

Assume for a moment that organizations are information technologies. If that's the case, then processing units are the firm's humans, plus whatever mechanized information systems they have.

Now, unlike mechanical systems, human components of this larger IT network are far less modular. Certain positions require decades of experience and knowledge in order to perform optimally. You can't merely buy a person off the rack to slot into your organization if you have particular needs for their position.

From the perspective of an organization, then, in order to ensure continuity of capacity of a system, niche capacities need to be actively cultivated. If your position as X manager is part of their VP of X pipeline, then the organization's ability to selectively pick people who would be best suited for grooming into the VP of X position could be vital to their staffing strategy.

That said, this assumes a certain approach to developing capacity within firms (one, however, that is excessively common), which itself is a strategy choice mediated by a number of factors, including the firm's attractiveness to hires from the outside. If you're Google, for instance, you likely have the ability to pull the capacity you need from the market if its a generalized asset.

[johnward]

This is why I have a problem with the term "career development" in general. My career will never revolve around any one company. It sounds more like it's employee development for the benefit of the company not the employee's career.

[LucasCollecchia]

Well, you're probably right. There's a conflict of interest with respect to developing an employee's career from the perspective of the employee and the firm. Both want what's best for themselves.

One of the big concepts in negotiation theory, has been the rise of interest harmonization, wherein parties attempt to figure out how to make their dealings with others create shared interests. If successful these efforts might make career development efforts live up to their name.