u/LavishnessFormer7843

I have been thinking about how subjective promo calibrations can be. Two engineers doing similar-quality work can get different outcomes depending on their manager's advocacy skills, the team's visibility, or just timing.

For those of you managing engineering teams:

- Do you have a clearly defined level framework with measurable criteria?

- How do you handle it when an engineer thinks they're ready but you disagree?

- Would you use an objective method that lets engineers self-assess against the level framework, attach evidence, and surface gaps, so that the promo conversation is data-driven instead of opinion-driven?

Just exploring whether the current process is broken enough.

I am a mid-level engineer and I have noticed that at most companies, the criteria for getting promoted are frustratingly vague. "Demonstrates senior-level impact" or "shows technical leadership", but no one tells you exactly what that means or how to prove it. It is not objective

I have seen equally talented engineers get different promo outcomes because one had a better manager or knew how to "sell" their work better during perf cycles.

Curious:

- At your company, are promo criteria clearly defined and measurable?

- Have you ever been told you're "not ready" without a concrete explanation of what's missing?

- Would it help to have an objective method that maps your work against your company's level framework and shows you exactly which gaps to close?

Genuinely trying to understand if this is a widespread problem or just my experience.