The Trick to getting that Job Promotion

The company organized their monthly breakfast last week, the first one I attended. The MCs for the day were 2 relatively new entrants to the company and new members of the "Connect committee", the people running these welfare events.

It occurred to me right then that someone has to do these events. These are probably the people who need extra items on their already overflowing plates (cos the company is famous for lacking the balance in "work-life balance") to boost their performance during performance evaluations. It's a good deal, right? The office needs some welfare events once in a while to upkeep the morale of the staff and these young staff need an additional platform to showcase their dedication and motivation for the company.

Question is, who sets this rule that new staff need to prove their worth to the company through extra work? Is it no longer enough to just do one's work, and do it well? Or are these people lacking in terms of their work performance and are thus resorting to doing extra work to fare better during evaluations?

The second suggestion is less likely, as a person who is not doing his work well will very likely be discouraged from taking on more work. He will not be able to concentrate on the additional portfolio if the very reason for his employment rests on weak foundations. His supervisor will advise him to concentrate on his own job and perhaps even ask him to withdraw from the committee.

So it seems like the reason these people to it is because they are already proving their worth to the company from their assigned portfolio perspective, but feel the need to improve their standings by taking on these extra roles. In a promotion exercise, it is reasonable to expect managers to promote the worker who involved himself in more work opportunities than one who did his own job just as well but did not take on any extra roles. In a distributive justice viewpoint, he provided more for the company, so the company will provide more for him.

All this is well and good, except for 2 points:

1) Mis-aligned motivations

2) Value of such work

How much are these workers willing to put into organizing these extra activities? Sure they add to the performance evaluation, but it probably does not matter too much how well they performed in such committees.
There is little extra "promotional potential" between doing an excellent job and an okay job in these committees. If a large proportion of the committee was made up of these people, the resulting welfare events will be of an "okay" standard.

How much more likely will you promote a worker who contributes an "okay"
performance into such a committee as compared to a worker who does his normal job well and is assigned more work just by the nature of his job?
What is the value of contributing to these committees? If it's much lower than the everyday work, then it'll be difficult to recruit for these committees and even more difficult to motivate them to produce just an "okay" standard. If it's as high as everyday work, then workers would work in these committees rather than contribute to his everyday work (which theoretically should have a more direct impact on the company bottom line).

Just what is this ramble about? It's not that these committees do more harm than good, in an entire HR perspective. It's not that such committees should be outsourced since they produce so many problems.
They do serve a purpose, the problems are not that big a deal in some companies and they will continue to exist. This ramble is about how the corporate world serves to drain your soul. Glory to those willing to give up their personal time for the company. Glory to those who flaunt their abilities to their evaluators. You don't have to be good per se, you just have to be good at showing your good sides to the people who are watching. -Jimmy