Assess Career Growth

Assess Career Growth

Map an employee's work against a career or competency framework to answer: Where are they strong? Where are they growing? What should they focus on next?

This assessment is behavior-based — every rating must cite an observable action or outcome, not an impression or personality trait. The goal is development, not a verdict.

> Note: This skill works with any competency framework. If none is provided, it uses > a general industry framework as a fallback.

---

Step 1: Gather inputs

a. Employee and purpose

• Employee name, current role and level
• Purpose of this assessment:
• Review prep — mapping behaviors for a performance review
• Promotion case — evaluating readiness for the next level
• Development plan — identifying targeted growth areas
• Check-in — mid-cycle progress assessment

If this is a promotion case, also ask:

• What is the target level?
• What does the promotion process look like at your company? (Committee, manager decision, etc.)

b. Career or competency framework

Ask:

> "Share your company's career ladder or competency framework for this person's level. > You can point to a file, paste it, or describe the key expectations. > > If you also have the next-level expectations, share those too — it helps identify > growth indicators."

If no framework is provided, use this general fallback:

| Category | What it covers | |----------|---------------| | Impact & Delivery | Shipping work, meeting commitments, driving outcomes | | Technical / Functional Excellence | Depth and breadth in their domain | | Collaboration | Working across people, teams, and functions | | Leadership & Influence | Driving alignment, mentoring, decision-making | | Communication | Written, verbal, stakeholder management |

For each category, calibrate expectations to the employee's level (e.g., an IC3 is expected to deliver independently; an IC5 is expected to drive cross-team outcomes).

c. Evidence sources

Ask what's available:

• Performance review (written or in progress)
• One-to-one notes
• Peer feedback or 360 reviews
• Project outcomes and metrics
• Self-review
• Manager's own observations

Multiple sources strengthen the assessment. Single-source assessments should note that limitation.

---

Step 2: Map behaviors to framework

For each trait or competency in the framework:

a. Gather evidence

Find specific, observable behaviors or outcomes that demonstrate (or fail to demonstrate) the trait. For each:

• What happened? (The specific action, decision, or behavior)
• When? (Timeframe or project context)
• What was the outcome? (Result or impact)

b. Rate each trait

Use three levels:

| Rating | Meaning | |--------|---------| | Consistently demonstrated | Multiple clear examples across the review period | | Emerging | Some evidence, but not yet consistent or fully at level | | Gap | Expected at this level but not evidenced in available sources |

c. Flag growth indicators

For any trait demonstrated above the current level — at the next level's expectations — flag it as a growth indicator. These are critical for promotion cases and show where the employee is already operating beyond their role.

d. Evidence-only rule

Every rating must cite at least one specific behavior or outcome. If you cannot find evidence for a trait, rate it as "Gap — insufficient evidence" rather than guessing. No personality-based assessments. Not "she's a natural leader" — instead: "she facilitated the cross-team alignment meeting in Q3 and drove consensus on the API contract in 2 sessions."

---

Step 3: Bias check

Before producing the assessment, check for:

| Bias | Check | |------|-------| | Horns / Halo | Is one strong trait (positive or negative) coloring your view of all other traits? Does each trait have its own independent evidence? | | Recency | Are you only drawing from recent work? Check for evidence across the full period. | | Similarity | Are you rating traits higher because the employee approaches work the way you would? Focus on outcomes. | | Central tendency | Are you marking everything as "Emerging" to avoid differentiation? Commit to the evidence. |

If any bias is detected, revisit the affected traits and adjust.

---

Step 4: Produce the assessment

Strengths (2-4 traits)

For each strength:

• Name the trait/competency
• Provide 1-2 specific examples with outcomes
• If demonstrated above current level, note it explicitly
• Quote the framework's language for this trait at the relevant level (if available)

> Example: > Collaboration — Consistently demonstrated (Senior Engineer level) > > Led the cross-team integration effort with the Platform team in Q3, coordinating > 3 workstreams across 8 engineers. Proactively identified a dependency conflict in > week 2 that would have delayed the release by 3 weeks, and facilitated a technical > design session that resolved it. > > Framework expectation: "Drive alignment across teams on shared technical decisions."

Growth indicators (traits above current level)

List any traits where the employee is operating at the next level. For promotion cases, this section is critical — it demonstrates readiness.

For each:

• Name the trait and the level it corresponds to
• Provide the specific evidence
• Note whether this is consistent or a one-time demonstration

Development areas (2-3 traits)

For each development area:

• Name the trait/competency
• State what the framework expects at this level
• Describe the specific gap — what's missing or inconsistent
• Be constructive: frame as "not yet" rather than "not capable"

> Example: > Communication — Stakeholder management — Emerging > > Framework expects: "Communicate project status and risks to stakeholders proactively." > > Current state: Status updates are thorough when requested, but not proactively shared. > The Q2 API delay was flagged to the PM only after the original deadline passed. > > Suggested focus: Establish a weekly async update cadence with key stakeholders.

Development plan

For each development area, suggest:

• 1-2 concrete actions (not "improve communication" — instead: "present at the monthly architecture review twice in Q1")
• Opportunities: stretch projects, mentoring relationships, training, or exposure
• How to measure progress (what would "demonstrated" look like?)

Promotion readiness (if applicable)

If this is a promotion case:

• Summary of traits at or above next level
• Summary of remaining gaps
• Honest assessment: Ready now / Ready with focused development / Not yet ready
• What needs to happen before promotion — be specific

---

Output format

# Career Growth Assessment: [Employee Name]
**Current Level:** [Level] | **Purpose:** [Review prep / Promotion case / Development plan / Check-in]
**Assessment Date:** [Date] | **Period Covered:** [Period]

## Framework Used
[Name of framework or "General industry framework"]

## Strengths
[2-4 traits with evidence]

## Growth Indicators
[Traits demonstrated above current level, if any]

## Development Areas
[2-3 traits with specific gaps and framework expectations]

## Development Plan
[Concrete actions per development area]

## Promotion Readiness *(if applicable)*
[Summary assessment with evidence]

---

Tone

• Developmental, not judgmental. This is a tool for growth.
• Specific and evidence-based. No vague praise or vague criticism.
• Honest about gaps. Sugarcoating development areas helps no one.
• Respectful of the employee — they may read this. Write it so they'd recognize their own work in it.
• Direct about promotion readiness. If they're not ready, say so clearly and say what would change that.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: PierrickMartos
• Source: PierrickMartos/Leadership-Skills
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.