Promotion criteria: set the rules before the names

Set the yardstick before reviewing candidates

Write down what the new role requires before you review names. The useful switch is the order: do not pick a favourite first and build a justification afterwards. A shared scoring matrix lets you show which evidence supports a promotion decision.

1. Derive three to five criteria from the actual duties of the target role.
2. For each one, define observable evidence, a scoring scale and a weight. Explain what each score means.
3. Share the criteria and process with eligible people in advance.
4. Assess everyone using the same types of evidence and scale. Record missing information explicitly rather than filling gaps with assumptions.

Replace labels with evidence

Instead of rating unexplained “leadership potential”, a relevant role might call for documented project coordination: were responsibilities clarified and conflicts addressed? This is an example, not a universal requirement. Check whether people had comparable opportunities to build that evidence, too.

Fixed criteria make shifting expectations easier to spot. The US EEOC recommends known, job-related promotion standards applied consistently. This makes the reasoning more auditable; it does not prove that the outcome is fair.

Review exceptions and limits

Document any departure from the assessment and discuss it with the responsible panel. Examine criteria and weights for unequal effects: a neatly completed matrix can still disadvantage people. Protect confidential application data and follow local employment and anti-discrimination requirements. The linked EEOC guidance is from the United States, not worldwide legal advice.