A clearly defined job ladder provides people a clear picture of what they need to accomplish and what skills they need to display in order to move into a new role. A clearly defined job ladder provides a baseline for performance appraisals. Everyone in the organization knows what is expected of people in each role. Are you displaying these attributes with a level of proficiency requisite for the role, or are you not? Job ladders make the expectations of progress and the opportunity for advancement clear and consistent.
Given the choice between no structure for advancement or job ladders, I'll choose job ladders any day. And given the choice between losing my eyesight or having tunnel vision, I'll choose tunnel vision any day. Neither of the options is actually appealing.
Lean InIn "Lean In", Sheryl Sandberg uses the Ladder versus Jungle Gym metaphor to describe people's overall career path. She talks about moving from company to company, gaining different perspectives and learning along the way.
In ascending a ladder, there is a single straight path. Each step clearly defined, you move in sequenced progression with no exploration and no alternatives. Run into an obstacle? You're stuck or you move the entire ladder and start over. Someone else on the ladder? You'd best be highest on the ladder, or you've got an ass of a view.
Built by youThere is occasion where the few, like Sheryl, are provided the opportunity to move laterally or even diagonally within a single organization. But for most of us, the progression is more akin to a series of ladders lined up side by side. You have to jump from one to the other, risking a fall with each leap. Most organizations provide ladders, if anything at all. You have to take fear-filled leaps to build your own personal jungle gym.
Built by companiesI propose companies dump ladders and replace them with jungle gyms. This is a concept. I suspect it is wrought with issues, but I know for certain that job ladders are wrought with issues.
So let's build a jungle gym.
Roles => CompetenciesFirst, look at all of the roles in the organization and think about the competencies and attributes each requires. Make the list comprehensive. What is specific to the role? What is more general? Technical, clinical, and interpersonal. Leave nothing out. Do this for every role in the company.
Competencies => SkillsFor each of these competencies, think about what they look like on a growth continuum. What skills does a junior java developer have? What about a master java developer?
Okay, now you have a huge list of skills that map to competencies. First, you'll find that there is a good deal of commonality. You probably want most developers to be skilled in Object Orientation, regardless of language. You probably want all people to have communication skills. Think about those skills that are not really context specific and move them into their own areas. Object Oriented should move out from under the language competencies into it's own, for example.
What you should have a list of competencies that fit one or more of the formal roles within the organization. Each competency should be replete with skills one portrays on their path to mastery.
The jungle gymNow ditch the job ladders and formal roles. Pay everyone in the company the same base salary. For each of the skills an individual can display and utilize, increase their pay by a set, published amount. Everyone in the company has the opportunity to grow their skills along whatever path they choose. You can stay in a specific vertical and grow your skills and income. You can go shallow across a broad spectrum and grow your skills and income. You can move vertically, horizontally, diagonally, or whatever direction you choose.
I'm not going to get into the literally hundreds of ways you can determine if someone portrays a particular set of skills. In my opinion, it should be based on group evaluation. In one model, we talked about a pay increase for every (x) skill points. That way, the evaluation was not necessarily tied directly to compensation. But I've not yet found an environment brave enough to try something this radical.
Common counter arguments
People will focus on whatever is easiestI think we're not giving people enough credit. And if they do go for what's "easy", they have to employ the skills to get the compensation, so it's still to everyone's benefit.
People will focus on whatever they wantI think people already do this. They work on passion projects on evenings and weekends. They then seek other environments that foster their chosen growth path.
People will focus on increasing their compensationSo... people will focus on increasing their value to the organization? Gee, that's too bad.
What do you think?I've had this in my head for years. This is the first I've put it to paper. It's not fully formed and I've never tried it. This is a concept. I suspect it is wrought with issues, but I know for certain that job ladders are wrought with issues.
Seriously, what do you think?