The Right Way to Implement Stretch Assignments

Shortly after earning her engineering degree from a competitive undergraduate program, Kayla was hired to be a software engineer at a large tech company. Two years into the role, however, she was still stuck fixing bugs and handling other tedious tasks—the kind of work, as she put it, that “ensures everyone else can do their jobs more efficiently.” When Kayla asked her manager about new projects, his response surprised her. “I’m not really sure what you’re working on,” he admitted. “I don’t bother you because you did great work last year, so we just assume you’re continuing to do great work.” What her manager saw as a compliment—hands-off trust—had the opposite effect on Kayla. On her team, where men outnumbered women four to one, her male peers were regularly offered stretch assignments that helped them build specialized skills, gain management experience, and raise their visibility. Despite having the same credentials, Kayla was quietly passed over. For organizations, stories like this should be a wake-up call: While stretch assignments are often discussed as powerful tools for developing talent and advancing careers, they don’t always deliver those benefits equally in practice. Kayla’s story comes from a large organizational case study conducted at our lab, and her experience is far from unique. As employees build their careers and climb internal ladders, stretch assignments can play an outsized role in shaping their trajectory. These projects are frequently tied to leadership visibility, skill development, and career advancement—all critical ingredients in any talent development and retention strategy. That’s why it’s essential for organizations to treat stretch assignments not as ad hoc opportunities, but as a strategic component of talent management. This means putting systems in place that support, evaluate, and reward these assignments equitably. Kayla’s story highlights what can happen when organizations rely on informal or inconsistent approaches: even well-intentioned efforts to develop talent can result in uneven—and inequitable—outcomes. What the Research Tells Us For nearly a decade, we’ve studied how stretch assignments impact the trajectories of early-career employees. While previous research focuses on their importance at the mid- to senior-career level, we asked: When do stretch assignments start to matter and who benefits most from them? To answer these questions, we designed two research projects examining their impact on engineers in their first few years on the job. The first was a qualitative study of 19 early-career professionals based on two interview samples of recent graduates entering workforce. Interviewees were predominantly women who reported being from Asian, Black, Latina, or “other” racial/ethnic backgrounds, and were asked to describe stretch assignments based on their own experiences. They also reflected on how people were selected for these opportunities and the outcomes of receiving them. The second was a longitudinal, survey-based, quantitative study of over 600 graduates from U.S. undergraduate engineering programs within three years of graduation. Of the sample, 65% self-identified as men and 35% as women (these groups include individuals specifying “trans man/male” or “trans woman/female” in an open-ended option on our survey). The majority (88%) were Asian and/or White, compared with 12% who were Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and/or Pacific Islander. These demographics closely—but not exactly—reflect U.S. engineering bachelor’s degree recipients at the time of the study (2015-2017), with women particularly overrepresented among our survey respondents. In this study, we broke down a stretch assignment into two main components and analyzed each one separately: assignments that are visible to others in the organization (they are known and get you known) and that involve new and unfamiliar areas (they get you “out of your comfort zone” and help you learn new skills). We analyzed who had access to these assignments by measuring how frequently respondents engaged in each type. Survey participants were asked how often, since starting their current job, their assignments involved either generating interest and feedback from others (visibility) or working in unfamiliar areas (new areas), using a five-point scale from “never” to “very often.” We also examined how these types of assignments were connected to each participant’s expectation of job rewards. Specifically, we asked how likely participants thought they were to receive a raise or promotion in the next year, using a five-point scale from “definitely not” to “definitely yes.” While we didn’t ask participants to directly link their expectations to stretch assignments, our statistical models allowed us to analyze these relationships—offering insight into how stretch work may shape perceptions of career advancement. We looked at differences by gender and race/ethnicity among engineers, controlling for academic and job-related factors. Our findings surface a critical but underexamined pattern: The impact of stretch assignments lies not only in when they begin to shape careers (often, early on), but also in how they shape those careers—and that impact is not uniform. Specifically, we found that early-career stretch assignments—especially those involving new and unfamiliar areas of work—were more strongly linked to expected rewards for dominant groups in engineering: men and engineers from White and Asian backgrounds. By contrast, the same types of assignments were not linked to the same expected rewards for similarly qualified and positioned women engineers or Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and Pacific Islander engineers. In other words, the same stretch assignments that can launch some careers may do little—or even stall progress—for others. Disparities in the perceived value of stretch work—even among engineers who have similar talent and experience—point towards a larger, systemic issue that extends beyond the decisions of individual managers. Our findings reveal that access to career-advancing stretch work is not only uncertain, but that the returns on this work may be inconsistent and unclear—especially for those who have long faced cultural and historical skepticism about their abilities and belonging. Where Organizations Go Wrong Our research, along with findings from related studies of disparities in work tasks, highlights two common pitfalls that organizations should address when developing a talent strategy that includes stretch assignments. If not managed carefully, these challenges can limit the growth of high-potential employees and weaken efforts to build a strong, diverse leadership pipeline. Below, we outline each issue and offer practical steps senior leaders can take to build fairer systems for assigning, supporting, and rewarding early-career stretch work. While our analysis focuses on the engineering industry, these lessons can be applied across sectors and functions. 1) Under-communicating the importance of a stretch assignment. In our qualitative study, several participants knew what a “stretch assignment” was but had difficulty describing how these opportunities functioned in their organization. Many were even less aware of how vital stretch assignments could be to their career growth. This reflected a broader lack of communication from managers about what it really takes to advance. One woman we interviewed, for example, explained that stretch assignments on her team were often framed as optional or extra. She and her peers only realized their importance after being passed over for a promotion—at which point it became clear that these assignments were “secretly mandatory.” How to fix it: To ensure stretch assignments are distributed and pursued equitably, organizations must equip managers with clear guidance around the role they play in early-career talent development. This means not relying solely on informal coaching or mentorship, but also providing structured tools and systems that help managers communicate what high performance looks like—and how to help employees achieve it. A good start involves making the unwritten rules of advancement more visible. Senior leaders can play a critical role by providing guidance and training that help frontline managers communicate these pathways to their teams. That includes encouraging initiative-seeking behaviors such as expressing interest in stretch assignments, pursuing high-visibility projects, cultivating relationships with influential colleagues, and identifying opportunities for sponsorship and skill-building. Just as important is ensuring those messages are delivered equitably and systematically. Organizations should establish processes that help managers track whom they’re developing—and whom they may be overlooking. Tools for documenting development conversations, prompts in performance reviews, or dashboards that highlight participation in stretch opportunities are all good options. By promoting consistent and inclusive communication across teams, organizations can help level the playing field and ensure all employees have access to the same knowledge. 2) Overlooking which team member expects (and receives) rewards. Our quantitative study highlighted a second pitfall: the relationship between stretch assignments and expected job rewards was generally stronger for dominant groups in engineering—male, White, and Asian engineers. In fact, although women engineers reported doing more stretch assignments in unfamiliar areas, the expected job rewards associated with this work were less clear for them than for men. These disparities became even more pronounced when analyzed by race and ethnicity. For Asian and White engineers, stretch assignments in new and unfamiliar areas were strongly linked to expected salary increases and promotions. These same relationships were not observed for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and Pacific Islander engineers. This suggests that professional gains from these opportunities are not perceived equally across all groups. Why might this be? It’s not due to differences in skill, confidence, or experience—our analysis controlled for engineering confidence, academic success, prior internships, and career exposure. Instead, we theorize that the difference lies in status within a highly technical field like engineering. Decades of sociological research show that people perceived as highly competent in a given field—often those from historically-advantaged groups—are more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt in ambiguous situations. Equally qualified individuals from historically less-advantaged groups face more scrutiny and skepticism. Over time, these advantages can become internalized, making some groups more likely to expect career rewards, while others may be less certain that the same efforts will lead to advancement. Our findings also raise questions about why early-career women engineers, in particular, reported doing more new area stretch assignments than men. Were they being given these opportunities to develop their skills rather than to position them for leadership? In other words, do men get higher-value stretch assignments to advance, while women get stretches to prove themselves? More research is required to answer these questions. How to fix it: Organizations should not only track who is getting stretch assignments, but also clarify how these opportunities connect to career growth. Simply assigning high-stakes work—or encouraging employees to seek it out—isn’t enough. Employees need to know: What does success look like? What specific skills will be developed? How will this work factor into future raises, promotions, or leadership consideration? Too often, the value of a stretch assignment is assumed to be self-evident—but our research suggests that, given widely held cultural beliefs and biases, different groups perceive the payoff of similar work very differently. Without systems in place to clarify the purpose, expectations, and potential outcomes of stretch opportunities, organizations risk undercutting the very advancement possibilities that stretches are theoretically designed to open up. One way to systematize this is through clear documentation and performance frameworks tied to stretch work. At one multinational company we studied, a manager introduced a simple but powerful shift: integrating an “assignment review” into annual career conversations. This reflection helped employees make more strategic decisions about which opportunities to pursue. It also helped leaders ensure that growth-oriented work translated into real advancement. Organizations can also take steps to ensure that employees who excel in stretch assignments are recognized and supported in ways that lead to real career growth. Publicly acknowledging those who excel in stretch roles increases visibility and signals their contributions to key decision-makers. As an example, at another company we studied, junior employees were matched with senior mentors who not only supported them through challenging projects but also helped translate that experience into broader career gains. This kind of mentorship, layered on top of day-to-day managerial support, demonstrated an organization-wide commitment to equitable development. Ultimately, our research underscores the importance of designing systems that make the value and rewards of stretch assignments clear, consistent, and accessible. When organizations invest in structures that support managers—through training, communication tools, and systems for tracking and auditing assignments—more employees can benefit from stretch work. This not only accelerates individual career growth, but also strengthens the organization’s ability to build a diverse and prepared leadership pipeline.

The Right Way to Implement Stretch Assignments

Summary.

Partner Center