Here are some highlights of our thinking for each of the areas: 1. “Our goal was to ensure we had space for the wide range of important feedback that we’ve given to folks on our team over the years” We wanted to ensure reality (well, at least our experience) was informing this, rather than theory. Our goal was to ensure we had space for the wide range of important feedback that we’ve given to folks on our team over the years. □ (Hmm, maybe we’ll cut that down next time around.) So ultimately we arrived at five big buckets – called “skill areas” – and then we had two to four discrete areas within them, leading to 17 in total. But just amalgamating these into a long laundry list of skills and attributes isn’t helpful enough. The first part of the challenge is choosing the “buckets.” There are so many aspects to being a successful PM, and lots of great articles articulating these. So we’re sharing our ladder in the hope that it can act as inspiration when considering what the PM career ladder should look like in your own organization. Getting promoted is usually more nuanced than just nailing a series of discrete tasks.” But having a solid framework for framing the discussion is a big step forward. As our colleague Paul Murphy recently wrote: “People tend to ask a simple question: ‘What do I need to do to get promoted?’ However, this question rarely has a simple answer. Of course, there’s still heaps of ambiguity and subjectivity. “Having a solid framework for framing the discussion is a big step forward” It took four of us to get our latest ladder over the line (thanks, Colin and Paige)! They make it easier to do fair, consistent, well-weighted performance reviews.īut, frankly, they’re a pain in the ass to write.They make it clear what’s expected of them to get a promotion (which is really the main question everyone has).They make it clear to folks on your team (and to their colleagues who do peer reviews) what’s expected of the role. This is where career ladders come to the rescue. In reflecting on the reviews we’ve delivered, we’ve found that it’s too easy to be overly reliant on peer feedback and thus too ad hoc in the areas we’ve focused on. The result is that performance reviews can be hard to do well, consistently, across multiple managers. We all think we know what we’re talking about, but when it comes down to it, the difference between great, good and not quite good enough can be pretty slippery.Īnd what makes this even harder is that, because PMs own so few clear deliverables (such as code or designs), it can be tricky to pinpoint what exact impact a PM had on a team.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |