[ZephyrBlu]

That entirely depends upon whether you are in an environment that takes levelling seriously or not. It is possible to break it down like this if your org and manager are competent [0].

Good managers understand what the shape of each level looks like, and companies that care calibrate levelling across orgs. Your manager advocating for a report who does not meet the bar doesn't work because it requires approval from more than just your manager.

In saying that, I think there is always going to be some title inflation and some level of playing the system. But I have found that people at higher levels do tend to be more competent and embody more behaviours associated with that level, though levels can get fuzzy above senior.

[0] https://commoncog.com/seeing-expertise-milestone-worth-aimin...

[pfannkuchen]

Leveling establishes a social hierarchy. The ape brains of the people on the team don’t care about the ladder. If you mess up the social hierarchy people will be unhappy.

If there is peer input into the grading system, the ape brain social hierarchy judgements are being leaked into the leveling system (in a good way). If someone feels bad about the reviewee being at the new hierarchy spot they aren’t going to support the promo, regardless of what the candidate did. Of course the candidate doing things influences the ape brain judgement so it’s not as if these things are completely disconnected, it’s just not how it looks on the surface.