We present a theoretical and empirical analysis of internal promotion versus external recruitment, using a job-assignment model involving competing firms with heterogeneous productivities and two-level job hierarchies with one managerial position. The model predicts that, controlling for the number of managers, increasing the number of lower-level workers is associated with (1) greater internal promotion as opposed to external recruitment, (2) higher profit, and (3) more general training. Empirical analysis of a large cross section of British employers is consistent with these predictions.

An extensive theoretical literature investigates the role of promotions as a signal of worker ability. We extend the theory by focusing on how the signaling role of promotion varies with education and then investigate the resulting predictions using a longitudinal data set that contains detailed information concerning the internal-labor-market history of a medium-sized firm in the financial services industry. Our results support signaling being important for understanding the differences between promotion practices concerning bachelor’s and master’s degree holders, while the evidence concerning the importance of signaling for high school graduates and PhDs is mixed.

Surveying employment-related newspaper advertisements over several centuries, we identify four eras (neither workers nor firms posted ads, mostly workers posted ads, mostly firms posted ads, and both parties regularly posted ads). These eras can be understood in the context of the equilibrium of a matching model that incorporates strategic interactions by both sides of the labor market. Potential explanations for transitions across eras include increasing literacy rates, expansion of social insurance programs, growth in the labor force and firm size, reduction in mobility costs and search frictions, and the internet.

We use a systems-based econometric method to show that classic and market-based tournament models are empirically distinguishable since the role of risk differs across these models. Implementing the method using a large, Finnish, worker-firm matched panel, we find support for classic tournaments given that promotions depend on relative performance, the firm’s wage structure is convex, promotion probabilities are decreasing in the number of competitors, performance is increasing in the wage spread, and workers and firms adjust their choice variables in opposite directions when the variance of the stochastic component of worker performance changes.