The origin of this concept of designer competencies came from a product manager model that Ravi Mehta used while he was at Tinder. He made a competency model about the different skills a product manager should have, so I loved that and wanted to apply it to the content design team at Reforge. This artifact is about what those competencies were for the design team and scoring around all 8 of those competencies.

Each quarter, we would have a meeting with myself and the designer where we would come with a score for the designer based on each competency area. This would be done independently ahead of the meeting and we would talk through why we gave each area its applicable score. Sometimes my score for an area was higher than theirs; other times they had a higher score than I did and I could share feedback to help them improve on an area I saw an opportunity to address.

In the chart shown, there are results per quarter per competency and the final score that we decided on together for each area.

We kept 1 in here as "Not a focus." Especially for people that maybe were struggling in two or three areas, including "1" in here was super important, because we couldn't focus on everything. 

We needed to have an opportunity for designers to identify areas where they don't need to focus on improvement because either 1: they were already strong in that area or 2: we had enough contributors proficient in a certain aspect of the role that it wasn't a priority to improve upon. 

This way we could remove some emotion from scoring someone a "1" in an area. We could highlight an area of the role and agree not to factor that into the personal growth process.

Someone with 2s across the board or all 2s straight down is probably not ready for a promotion. It shows that there's a lot of work to be done on the different competencies. They would need a few threes or a four here and there to indicate they were ready for a promotion. 

Having 2s still meant they could be working really hard, but maybe haven't broken through to that next level. They could still be eligible for a raise based on the quality of their work, they're hitting deadlines, their courses were completed and they're getting good NPS scores. 

But for a more substantial raise or a promotion, we'd be looking for more three or fours in the scoring criteria.

To approach quarterly evaluation as if it was just my opinion or my interpretation of these competencies was short-sighted. We were a remote team; content designers operated in different pods and I didn't see their work every day. I realized a shortcoming of this approach was that I needed to get peer feedback at a quarterly cadence that wasn’t overwhelming for peers to provide, but would give me a fuller picture of the content designer’s performance. That was an area of improvement that I wanted to integrate next but never quite figured out how to incorporate. As I took on more responsibility and more direct reports, I got further and further away from being able to really give this assessment and provide them with strong feedback. So figuring out a way to bring in that 360° peer-to-peer feedback would have made this tool even more effective.

What I wanted to accomplish with these specific scores was to explain what a 2, 3, or 4 entailed for each competency. These could pertain to core competencies of the role and also allow for the individual to provide color or context as we went through the evaluation process. The other thing I wanted to ensure with this scoring rubric is that people who had elements of their role that wasn't applicable - say someone who didn't use Figma at all for whatever reason - could mark a "1 - Not a focus" and not have it pertain to their overall score. Most people wouldn't have scoring across all 8 competencies, for example. Some might have a couple of areas that weren't a focus for their position, so it wouldn't make sense to factor it into their evaluation.

Michael Smith

This framework around designer competencies was used as part of the overall performance evaluation at Reforge. Both managers and contributors used this alongside the Professional Development Framework to help guide the feedback process.

2 = Performance consistency is varied and could use some improvement

3 = Performance is consistently meeting expectations

Structures Figma visuals and files effectively

This competency speaks to how the actual files are set up. Are the files clean and easy to navigate for someone coming in to review or learn from the file? This competency is important because it's helpful for others coming into the file. It also speaks to an individual's care for their work.

 All the information is in the file but there is a lack of consistency. Slides don't have frames around them, frames aren't aligned and spaced equally, margin indicators are left on (distracting for reviewers), builds aren't present or marked, presentation notes are sloppy (duplicate info or odd spacing). Components aren't used or rarely used

3 = Figma files are super clean and organized. Frames are consistently spaced and aligned, margins are followed but indicators turned off, builds are either created or marked, presentation notes are cleaned up. Components are used regularly.

4 = Figma files are meticulous. Certain frames may be named for specific reasons, a legend may be present at the top to help orient new folks to the file, components are built and grouped in helpful ways

Designs visuals in alignment with the CDS

This competency is all about using the design system. Are the visuals you create in alignment with the documentation and using pre-existing templates and components regularly?

2 = There are a lot of inconsistencies with the usage of icons, colors, and styles. You spend a lot of time trying to create custom visuals when a list might be just fine. You regularly struggle with the Goldilocks principles of finding the right level of information to place on slides. Tables, drop shadows, and charts are built but not in full alignment with the system

3 = You regularly use existing templates and components when ideal to help scale well. You regularly use icons, colors, and styles appropriately. You grasp the essence of the system and your visuals utilize callbacks, memorability, and scalability.

4 = You build quickly because you know the system so well. You're able to build custom visuals in alignment with the CDS in ways that we can add to the library and help make it more robust.

This competency is pretty straight forward but incredibly important for team morale and hitting deadlines. This is another instance where the SL is ultimately responsible for setting the deadlines, but the CD needs to contribute here.

2 = CD acts as a line cook and just accepts the deadlines they are given. They then have to scramble to complete the visuals in order to meet the timeline. This is also an area where most deadlines are met, but on occasion, you need to miss one (likely because the planning wasn't in your favor)

3 = CD is in regular communication from the outset of what realistic timelines are and the implications of tradeoffs. They not only buy themselves enough time, they also deliver on time when there is a crunch.

4 = CD makes the SL aware of slipping timelines and motivates everyone to stay on track. They help to ensure the program sticks to the 32-week overall timeline.

Comes up to speed quickly to understand new topics

We are all constantly learning new things in this role. The speed at which we're able to understand the content well enough to create visuals for it will determine how successful we'll be in the role. One of the biggest indicators for success in this area is how well the visuals help explain the text. If you get a lot of comments from an SL, GSL, or design reviewer that they aren't understanding what the visual means, it's likely because the CD doesn't have a strong grasp on the topic.

2 = CD relies on the SL to proactively reach out to explain topics. CD also relies on the SL to write clearly in order to understand new topics. Most visuals accurately represent the written content.

3 = CD proactively reaches out or tags SL when they aren't grasping a concept. Additional reading on the topic is proactively sought out. Multiple iterations of visuals are created to try and get a good solution for a concept.

4 = CD identifies areas that are confusing and brings them up with the SL, sometimes offering suggestions on how the information could be better structured. CD proactively creates visuals to bring to a brainstorming session with SLs.

This competency is all about how you choose to pursue professional development. There is a lot more about what specifically Professional Development is 

2 = You seek out ways to get better at the core skills required for the role of content designer.

3 = You have mastered core skills and actively begin to seek out ways that your work aligns with business objectives. In doing this your comfort zone is stretched and you and the company are better for it.

4 = You seek out ways to align with business objectives and upskill in other areas. This may take place on "your own time" in addition to your regular workload. You've communicated this plan with your manager and have put an action plan in place to apply the learnings.

The result of this competency helps the overall team collaborate better together. There aren't specific tactics we're looking for here, but ask yourself the question: "what unique personality traits or adjacent skills do I have that could help make the team better?"

2 = Participates in team and culture activities but predominantly allows others to run them.

3 = Identifies areas where the team could benefit from an activity, realm of knowledge, or ongoing initiative and shares that with the team.

4 = Has established themselves as a go-to person for team activity ideas when morale needs a boost or as an area expert with specific suggestions for team skills or competency growth.

One of the great parts of working on a team is having teammates! This competency is all about how you are looking outside of your workstream to identify ways you can support other content designers.

2 = When asked, you are willing to make time to help out someone else on the team. You share learnings in BOF meetings.

3 = You jump in to support others via a sandbox session, helping to locate visuals, or proactively sharing something they have learned. Raises their hand when last-minute blog posts or live event decks come in.

4 = Is regularly one of the first people to respond in Slack to help out, answer a question, or brainstorm through a problem. You regularly check in on others to see how they are doing and how you might be able to work through issues together.

Designer Competency Map at Reforge

Designer Competency Map

Scoring

Competency Definitions and Scores

Sign up to see more