This is mild exploitation widespread in employment, and I think you're identifying with the exploiter.
It's not the rewards up front, it's the rewards as-you-go. Or it's the rewards at the end of the previous rank.
Always having your pay 1yr behind your responsibilities is wrong. You're doing the job, you get the pay.
On day 1 of being a lead, you've never been a lead before, but you are now. Year 1 leads get lead pay.
"You've done great, you're at the top of your rank! No, I can't reward you for it yet, just start at the next rank and we'll wait and see pleasethankyou." No. We saw. Pay me.
I'm so glad I've found this comment. It's REALLY strange to me that this is the first time I've read someone talking about this phenomena and on how exploitative it actually is and, like other comment noted, this is a very convenient co-opting of the Peter principle in order to get more senior people for cheap in the guise of "trials" and similar.
When exactly did this extortionary tactic started? There are so many things that go unquestioned...
I think it's quite a difference whether your boss already knows (or thinks) you can do the other job and still tries to not pay you the bump and you doing the extra work to get noticed.
In my case it wasn't even to get noticed. I just care about stuff. My current boss is actually trying to make me 'care less'. Like I can't leave it alone if I see the PMs do a crap job and I try to fix it. I can't not say something when I see the DevOps guys not taking care of the dev envs and dev experience.
Also when did this start? Like hundreds of not thousands of years ago. Why?
For this to be true, then it must be true that trial-run promotions very frequently fail, so they keep the person in the role they perform best in. I think that's not the case. I think trial-run promotions lead to promotions about equally as often as no-trial-run promotions.
The same people end up at the same end rank, they just take lower pay for a year to get there. And that one year drag compounds because raises are %.
Anyway we're likely disagreeing in an entirely vague way. Of course my leadership skills should be evident if I'm going to ask to be Lead, so yes day1 leads aren't starting from 0. But a company's surest bet for who to hire as Lead is me, so why should I put up with them telling me they just aren't sure yet? All hires into new roles are very uncertain, and I'm the most certain, so I get the role. Someone more certain than me is a person with 2yrs of Lead on their resume, but they get Lead 3 pay, and I'm not asking for Lead 3 pay. You're hiring a Lead 1 and I'm sure surest bet (inside the org or out) and we all know it.
Or go ahead whisper promises of a promotion in the ears of two on my team and watch them butt heads as they try to act out the phantom authority you've given them. A politicking horserace like that has a vastly worse impact on the company than just pulling the trigger and naming one of us Lead 1 even if we're obvious greenboots for a year.
It's not the rewards up front, it's the rewards as-you-go. Or it's the rewards at the end of the previous rank.
Always having your pay 1yr behind your responsibilities is wrong. You're doing the job, you get the pay.
On day 1 of being a lead, you've never been a lead before, but you are now. Year 1 leads get lead pay.
"You've done great, you're at the top of your rank! No, I can't reward you for it yet, just start at the next rank and we'll wait and see pleasethankyou." No. We saw. Pay me.