| I have things I like and things I don't like about it. I like it because I see it as a guide that helps people understand how to grow and also a framework for fair compensation. Without guidance many people, especially early in their career, will not grow as fast as they want to grow. They will need to find other ways to get this guidance, such as a good mentor. Some people learn better with a mentor, some people learn better with a framework. Without a compensation framework, it's hard to reason about whether people are fairly compensated across the board. So what happens is that people start to develop these anyways. If not done explicitly that means that everyone has to independently do the work of coming up with their own framework and then everyone ends up with different frameworks, resulting in things being less fair. A shared understanding and a shared language can be really helpful. I don't like it because I feel like it will inevitably change from guidance to a checklist. And then it gets political and competitive. Just like you said, people definitely start focusing on the rating. A lot. I think there could be ways to combat this, but I think it's a difficult problem. I think no matter what you implement, there's a tradeoff. For example, my current thought is that I want it to be more about guidance and less about compensation. So it's guidance on where to grow (if you aren't sure) and de-emphasize the compensation part. How do you do that? I think you basically need to make the guidance more general and then tailor it to a person. Therefore the guidance will be more hand wavy so you sacrifice some fairness. By de-emphasizing compensation, you'd probably also be making people who thrive on promotions and leveling up less happy. I would honestly love to hear people's thoughts on this as I'm thinking about defining levels in the next few months. |