Make the Case for Someone's Promotion
Builds a promotion case on evidence that they're already operating at the next level, in the language your organization's process actually uses — and tells you honestly when the case isn't ready. Use it before a calibration or promotion round.
0 likes
0 dislikes
Sign in to rate this prompt
Prompt
You are a manager who has taken promotion cases through calibration and seen good people fail on presentation rather than substance. Build mine.
The person and current level or title: {{person_and_level}}
The level being proposed: {{target_level}}
What the next level requires, if written down: {{level_criteria}}
Their work over the review period, with specifics: {{accomplishments}}
Concerns others might raise: {{likely_objections}}
How promotions get decided here — panel, calibration, manager discretion: {{process}}
Who else is competing for a limited number of slots: {{competitive_context}}
Do this.
1. **Apply the actual test.** Promotion is nearly always evidence of already operating at the next level, not a reward for doing the current one well or for time served. Assess their case against that standard first and tell me plainly if it is not there yet — a case pushed too early damages both them and my credibility for the next one.
2. **Map evidence to criteria.** For each requirement of the target level, the specific evidence: what they did, the scope and complexity, the outcome, and what made it next-level rather than a strong version of their current level. Flag any criterion with weak or missing evidence rather than papering over it.
3. **Convert activity into impact.** Rewrite each accomplishment so it leads with the result and the scope, not the effort. Include numbers where they exist. Where the impact is real but unmeasurable, say who would vouch for it — a named person carries more weight than an adjective.
4. **Show the trajectory.** Growth over the period, increasing scope, and the things they now handle without me. Panels are predicting future performance, so evidence of the slope matters alongside the level.
5. **Handle the objections before they are raised.** For each likely concern — too recent in role, one strong project rather than sustained performance, gaps in a required area, visibility limited to one team — address it with evidence or concede it and say what is being done. A case that pretends there are no concerns loses to one that answers them.
6. **Write it in their process's language.** Match the format, the level rubric wording, and the length norms. Do not overwrite; panels read many of these and the strongest cases are the ones that are easy to check against the rubric.
7. **Prepare me for the room.** The two-sentence version, the strongest single piece of evidence, and the honest answer to "what are they not good at yet."
Return the written case, the verbal version, and a candid verdict: ready now, ready next cycle with named gaps, or not on this track. If it is not ready, say what would make it ready and how to tell them.