Fuzzy Humans, Rigid Ladders
I've been leading teams and organizations for over two decades: far longer than the ten-year mark Daniel Pink popularized as the benchmark for expertise. Yet every time I confront the task of promotions and career ladders, I'm humbled by how uncertain and complex this part of leadership remains to me. No matter how experienced I become, human growth remains inherently fuzzy, and rigid frameworks inevitably fall short.
Why Startups Resist Career Ladders
At early-stage startups, I've consistently resisted formalizing career ladders. When a company is racing toward product-market fit, survival demands collective alignment. Introducing ladders prematurely can inadvertently shift focus from solving existential business problems to personal advancement. As soon as we codify levels, I’ve seen people sometimes optimize for promotion criteria rather than company needs.
The irony isn't lost on me: career ladders are central to how we communicate our market value. I've personally benefited from clear progression and recognition. Still, deferring structured ladders has often felt right. Ideally, everyone's first responsibility is ensuring the business succeeds, growing a foundation stable enough to support clear career advancement.
The Hidden Costs of Putting People in Boxes
When it's time to introduce structure, I've grappled deeply with the rigidity inherent in traditional leveling frameworks. Career ladders, by design, sort people into neat categories. But humans—especially talented, innovative ones—rarely fit cleanly into predefined boxes.
I often recall an engineer whose impact fundamentally reshaped our company's foundations. His contributions weren't easily captured by traditional "staff-level" criteria emphasizing broad communication. Instead, his influence spread subtly through architecture, code, and mentorship. Recognizing his true impact required difficult conversations and a willingness to challenge our definitions. Eventually, we elevated his role, but the experience revealed how limiting narrow, rigid frameworks can be.
Navigating the Subjectivity of Career Growth
Over years of leadership, I've adopted three key ideas that help balance necessary structure with human complexity.
1. Subjective, Explicitly Imperfect Guidelines
Career paths should openly acknowledge their inherent subjectivity. In R&D, there's often pressure to engineer airtight criteria, eliminating ambiguity. Yet pretending objectivity only masks complexity and creates false expectations. Advocating explicitly imperfect guidelines is uncomfortable but necessary. By openly acknowledging that criteria reflect evolving cultural and organizational needs, we set realistic expectations.
2. Demonstration Before Celebration
Another principle, which I first encountered at Heroku and have adopted widely since, is that promotions should follow sustained demonstration of the new level. "Consistently" is key: one successful project isn't enough. True promotion readiness is evident through sustained performance over meaningful periods.
Waiting can frustrate eager individuals, yet premature promotions rarely serve them or the organization. Promoting too soon risks damaging careers, morale, and trust.
Moreover, what's considered "senior" inevitably shifts as the organization scales. Clear communication about evolving expectations ensures employees understand why standards rise with company growth.
3. Intent-Based, Defensible Decisions
At Kard, my current company, we've adopted intent-based decision-making for promotions, inspired by David Marquet’s leadership model. Instead of conventional promotion committees, our managers explicitly state their intent to promote someone, and are prepared to rigorously explore their reasoning to their management chain and peers. Everyone involved can challenge this intent based on our subjective guidelines and their own direct experiences. HR and peers provide valuable input, but ultimately only the direct management chain has veto power.
Compared to traditional promotion committees, this method significantly reduces political maneuvering, gaming the system, and superficial box-checking behaviors. It has made our promotion decisions more rigorous and fair, even in the face of subjectivity. As a manager, knowing both that my reasoning will face thoughtful scrutiny and that I have agency sharpens my decisions. I prefer the approach and the outcomes of the intent-based model.
Closing Thoughts: Embracing Ambiguity
No system perfectly resolves the ambiguity inherent in human growth. Though clarity is comforting, humans remain inherently complex, and leadership inherently nuanced. Embracing ambiguity doesn't simplify promotions, but it makes leadership more authentic, compassionate, and honest.
How do you navigate the tension between structured growth and human complexity? I'd love to hear your experiences and insights.
