One of the most toxic practices in building teams is benchmarking. It’s not that you shouldn’t use things you observe as a yard stick, but cherry-picking your compares to justify your position is not particularly productive.

Frequently, as people make the case for their own promotions, they identify a weak player in the title they want and then argue for their promotion on those grounds. I understand why (and this is why lame promotions kill morale). But it’s a terrible practice.

Of course, managers who look to their strongest (who is frequently under-titles btw) are just as complicit in the terrible practice. Using someone at the tip top of their game to gate keep would-be entrants to a role is scarily risk averse.

I frequently coach people that how you get to the next level often impacts when you get beyond it. When you’re promoted early and you struggle mightily in the role, you have to overcome those struggles in top of all the other performance requirements.

But why should I make less money just because I’m being held back? How is that for my own good?

Most larger companies have overlapping pay ranges. If you’re not getting paid, there are ways to adjust that without necessarily changing title, role, and expectations.

And managers that tell you that they can’t do anything usually don’t understand or they are working under crazy strict guidance. You’ve got to be able to raise the topic without it turning into a hostage negotiation. If you can’t, there is something off about the environment.

I’d love to see people have open discussions about behaviors and proficiencies. You’ve got to be able to articulate—with examples—what successful behaviors look like.

In doing this, it’s important to avoid two things. First, don’t devolve into “what are the N things I must do to get promoted?” As I’ve learned the hard way, it’s possible to cross off items without modeling the right behaviors. Everyone loses if this happens.

Second, while everyone focuses on the gaps they need to close, consider spending more time understanding how to amplify your strengths. No one rose to the top by closing gaps and becoming merely good enough at everything. You need to be exceptional at something.

And finally, understand that beyond a certain point, some promotions depend not just in behaviors but in the scope of the role. Having a clear view of the scope required for the next level helps ppl gauge things like project selection/assignment. It’s important, esp w HR folk

I tend to operate under the JASPAR model—jobs are scoped, people are ranked. Before I get hatemail on the ranking thing, it’s just a way to think about paying ppl based on performance rather than purely on title. Beyond the scope of this thread.

Anyway, when ppl want promotions but the scope isn’t there, it’s natural to watch (even help) them leave. Having people leave an organization is a sign of strength. Indeed, if no one ever learns enough to get promoted elsewhere, are you really fostering growth?

As with all twitter opinions, it’s huge situational. So please read this and any other comments ppl make with a discerning eye. There’s lots of terrible advice out there. Choose wisely.

Sorry for typos. A few ons became ins. Phone keyboard and all. Autocorrect made me say something I didn’t Nintendo.