Origin
How this started
A short account of the pattern that turned into a consulting practice.
This practice didn't begin as a business plan. It began as a recurring observation across a handful of growing companies: the moment a promotion cycle needed to scale past a founder's personal knowledge of every employee, things got messy fast.
One pattern repeated itself almost word for word. A manager would tell a direct report they weren't "quite ready" for the next level, without being able to say what "ready" meant in concrete terms. The employee would leave the conversation with more questions than they walked in with. Was it about scope? Visibility? Tenure? Something unspoken? The manager often couldn't answer clearly, because no one had ever asked them to define it.
At the same time, a separate but related problem kept surfacing. Career conversations and compensation conversations were happening in the same meeting, sometimes in the same sentence. An employee would hear feedback about their growth trajectory and their raise in the same fifteen minutes, and walk away unable to separate the two. Was the promotion delayed because of readiness, or because of budget? Frequently, even the manager didn't know for certain.
What made this worth building a practice around wasn't that any single company had done something wrong. It's that this pattern showed up almost identically at company after company, regardless of industry. A logistics company with 90 employees and a software company with 140 employees described nearly the same symptoms, in nearly the same words.
The response, in every case, wasn't a complicated intervention. It was structure: written readiness criteria, a rubric built specifically for that company's actual work, a training session that gave managers a script instead of improvisation, and a communication plan so the rollout didn't read as a new set of hurdles.
"The goal was never to make promotions harder to get. It was to make the bar visible, so people could work toward it instead of guessing at it."
That is still the operating principle behind every engagement. A framework should reduce anxiety by making expectations legible, not increase it by adding process for its own sake.
What guides the work
Four working principles
Specific to your company
A rubric copied from a much larger company rarely fits. Criteria get built from your actual roles, not a generic competency library.
Evidence over impression
Readiness gets tied to observable work, not to how confidently someone speaks in meetings or how long they've been around.
Separate the money conversation
Growth feedback and compensation decisions get their own meeting, their own cadence, and their own documentation.
Communicate before you launch
A framework introduced without context reads as new gatekeeping. One introduced with a clear narrative reads as a map.