At many companies, it isn’t just up to one’s manager to determine a promotion. Instead, promotions (especially at a certain level and above) go to a promotion committee.

This document is WeWork’s promotion process for the technology teams.

At some companies, the promotion process looks different across product vs. eng. At WeWork, we decided to follow the same process.

A promo packet is standard practice at companies that use promotion committees. The folks on the committee often don’t see firsthand an employees day to day work, and so the promo packet summarizes accomplishments, feedback, and business need for anyone up for promotion.

Peer reviews were an important element because it meant that your partners had to see value in your work and want to advocate for you.

A calibrated reviewer is critical to maintain the same bar across all promotion evaluations.

Jiaona Zhang

This promotion process was created for all technology teams as part of the performance review cycle.

Create a scalable promotion process which can be consistently applied across the technology function

Process should be clear, easy to understand and iterable through feedback

There should be a certain level of calibration of promotion readiness to ensure the standards are applied consistently

To avoid bias, process should eliminate single points of decision making by collecting multiple signals/inputs and calibrated viewpoints to arrive at a decision

Transparency with the promotion candidate and team members on readiness for promotion. This encourages clarity throughout the process, as well as active feedback loops with the employees

Leveling guidelines will be leveraged as key baseline for promotion decisions

Should have been in their current role and level for a minimum of one year. Employees with less than one year of tenure can be nominated after review and approval by the Mission Lead and People Team. E.g. if someone has had remarkable and consistent impact (manager should surface up exceptions for consideration)

Consistently exceed expectations on many goals at the current level

Demonstrate a clear understanding of expectations at the next level and have been operating at the next level - evidenced by demonstrated performance, not on potential to get there

Demonstrate growth through holistic skill building (vs. cherry picking work that will likely get them promoted)

Employee Guidelines for Promotion Nomination:

Employees are encouraged to have promotion readiness discussion with their managers during the promotion nomination window. While employees may not self nominate for promotion, if they think that their managers’ recommendation to not pursue promotion is unjust, they should raise that to their mission leadership 

Manager Responsibility in Promotion Process:

Managers should nominate their direct reports (via google intake form) and follow the process steps according to the appropriate promotion timelines

They must ensure that all the sections of the promotion nomination form are complete, including asking peer reviewers to provide feedback directly to them and consolidating the feedback into the promo nomination form

Managers select the peer reviewers by consulting promo candidates and be transparent with them on who they’ve chosen (must be chosen in collaboration with the promo candidate )

(only select groups) Once manager and peer review is complete, it is the managers responsibility to send the packet to the selected calibrated reviewer for their Mission to input their feedback.

Managers who have managed the individual for less than 6 months must get all relevant feedback from previous managers (if still at We) or from the management chain on their team members performance and history. They should also know from their team members what expectations were set with them by their previous managers with regards to performance and promotion. It is the responsibility of managers to do their due diligence and initiate these conversations

Managers should have ongoing conversations with all team members on their promotion readiness and work together to develop a career plan

Three L+ 1 peer reviewers are required for the 

3 required reviewers should be in the same job family/functional area to provide effective feedback on candidate’s readiness to that level/job family (e.g. Eng to Eng)

One of the peers must be from outside their immediate team reporting structure e.g. x-mission engineers to review engineers. Cases where a candidate has business stakeholders outside their functional areas (e.g. community directors), they can be added as one of the 5 reviewers.

Managers and promo candidates should work together to select the peer reviewers. It is recommended to have a list of more than 3 peers, in case someone declines

Peers should be at promo candidate’s level + 1 or above and have a good understanding of the role requirements at that level. Managers should strive for a mix of individual contributor reviewers as well as managers in the group

Peers should have visibility and insight into the work of the promo candidate, to be able to provide effective feedback and comment on candidate’s readiness for the next level

Peer reviews should be shared to the manager directly via email and cc the promotion inbox at (email TBD here.) Peers can decline review requests if they feel like they do not have sufficient insight into the work of the promo candidate

If promo candidate is finding it difficult to select peer reviewers, they can solicit help from a group of advocates (Missions Leads, People Partners and Business Operations). This group will help facilitate how to review the candidate’s work and provide feedback.

Peer reviewers role in the promotion process:

Peer reviewer feedback must demonstrate that a candidate is operating at the next level, L+1

Feedback must be precise and avoid generalizations. For example, “individual spends significant time interviewing” is not precise. Instead, it should include detail like "individual is a key decider of L6+ level hires, has participated in 30+ such panels, and has recruited 2 on her team who are now also adept and bar-raising interviewers”

Peers can decline review requests if they feel like they do not have sufficient insight into the work of the promo candidate to comment on their readiness to next level

NOTE: Calibrated Reviewer Pilot Q4 2019. Implementation will be determined based on the number of calibrated reviewers and promo nominations received

The calibrated reviewer is a new addition to the promotion process during this promotion cycle

For this pilot, calibrated reviewers will participate in the cycle for the Software Engineering and Product Management promotions for L5 and above

For the pilot, we will strive to have calibrated reviewers of L6/7 and above

Calibrated reviewers are a group of select cross mission individuals who have a deep understanding of and are well calibrated in leveling guides for their job family. Typically these reviewers are well known and respected for their expertise

Role of the calibrated reviewer is to review the readiness of the promo candidate by looking at the artifacts provided in the packet and taking time to do their fact finding. They will provide their written recommendation to the manager, to be included in the promo packet. Calibrated reviewer’s recommendation is a strong data point in the promo packet for the committees to look at, but it is not the only deciding factor

The calibrated reviewer is not in the direct management structure of the manager putting forth the promotion nomination

Calibrated reviewers will be selected and appointed across Tech, by job family, to read x-mission promotion packets and provide their unbiased feedback directly to the manager, to be included in the packet.

Where there is a conflict of interest between calibrated reviewer and promo candidate, calibrated reviewer must opt out of reviewing the candidates packet (e.g. they work together on a day to day basis and have more insights into their work vs. other promo candidate’s work)

Promotions to level 6 and below will be managed within the Missions by mission and/or job family based promotion committees

Each Mission needs to appoint a member to run the promotion operations for their Mission. Responsibilities include ensuring missions follow timelines and all the process steps are moving along, collecting all nominations and determining how many committees are needed and what is the makeup of the committee, etc.

Promotion committees are groups of ~3-4 representative members who are nominated by the Mission leadership. There can be multiple promo committees within a mission depending on the number of nominations being evaluated

Promotion committees should be a mix of leadership. Missions should strive for a balanced mix of people managers and technical leaders

Committee members have a deep understanding of our leveling guidelines for their job families, respected individuals in the organization who have a high talent bar, and known for their good and unbiased judgment

For job families with smaller employee population, promo committees can be made up of a group of cross functional individuals who have a good understanding of the role expectations and close working relationship with the job family (e.g. Machine Learning promo - committee can consist of a group of Software Engineers and ML, DS engineers)

Promotions to level 7 and above will be managed centrally by cross mission/functional/job family based promotion committees

Committees will nominated L8+ leaders across Tech organization

All L7+ promotions will go through a final approval round by Shiva and Sebastian for Tech teams

Identity of the promotion committee members will be protected from the nominees and managers to provide a safe space for them to review and provide their feedback and recommendation

Committee members are responsible for reading the promotion packets prior to set deliberation dates and complete their fact finding e.g. projects reviews, code reviews, without engaging directly with the manager or nominee

Committee members should choose a moderator amongst the group to facilitate the discussion, collect votes and come to an agreement on final decision

Committee should provide a final recommendation on Yes/No/Need more information along with the justification for their recommendation - provided via a google form.

Project team will communicate the decision to the manager along with the justification. It is the manager’s responsibility to understand the justification and communicate the reasons back to the employee and own it

WIP: Groups of Missions to have shared Committees. Kate to publish list of missions that will conduct the promotion process as a cohort.

If the manager disagrees with the promo committee decision to not promote at this time, they can appeal the decision

In order to appeal, managers should provide additional evidence in response to the justification within the time window for appeals

Similarly, where the promo committee recommendation is “needs more information,” managers can submit additional information requested in the appeals window

Appeals committee for L6 and below is made up of mission leadership or their nominated delegates (not the same as the original committee)

Appeals to L7+ promotions recommendations can only be made to Shiva or Sebastian (depending on org) for consideration

Promotion Nomination Form i.e. The Promotion Packet:

Please review the document here and include this in your consideration for approval: [Link Redacted]

Tech Promo Process at WeWork

Fall 2019 Tech Promo Process

(WIP V2)

Principles

Sign up to see more