Promotion Packet Skill

Promotions reward demonstrated operation at the next level, not potential or tenure. The committee asks one question: is the evidence that they're already doing the next-level job? This skill builds the packet that answers it — mapping your work to each competency at the target level, surfacing the scope and impact that prove it, and honestly flagging the gaps so you submit when you'll actually win.

Required Inputs

Ask for these only if they aren't already provided:

• Current level → target level, and the ladder/rubric for the target level (the competencies it requires).
• Your evidence — accomplishments with impact (a brag-doc is ideal input).
• Scope — the breadth of your influence (self → team → multi-team → org).
• Supporters — peers/stakeholders who can vouch, and for what.

Output Format

Promotion Packet — name], current] → target]

1. Thesis — 2–3 sentences: you are already operating at target], and here's the through-line of evidence. Promotion = recognition of current reality, framed this way.

2. Competency evidence — the core of the packet; one row per target-level competency:

| Target-level competency | Evidence (specific, with impact) | Scope | |---|---|---| | e.g. Drives multi-team initiatives | Led the X program across 3 teams → outcome] | multi-team |

Every competency needs at least one strong, recent, evidenced example — gaps here are what sink packets.

3. Impact highlights — your 3–4 strongest wins, quantified, framed at the target level's expected scope.

4. Peer/stakeholder support — who will vouch and the specific thing each speaks to (leave quote slots).

5. Gap analysis (private, pre-submit) — competencies where the evidence is thin or stale, and a plan to close them. Submitting with visible gaps wastes a cycle; this section decides whether it's time.

Quality Checks

• ] The case is framed as "already operating at the next level", not "ready for / deserves it"
• ] Every target-level competency has at least one strong, recent, evidenced example
• ] Impact is quantified and framed at the target level's scope, not the current one
• ] Named supporters are mapped to specific competencies they can speak to
• ] A private gap analysis honestly flags weak spots and whether to submit now or next cycle

Anti-Patterns

• ] Do not argue from tenure or effort ("I've been here 3 years", "I work hard") — committees reward demonstrated scope and impact
• ] Do not leave a target competency unevidenced — one unbacked competency is the gap reviewers latch onto
• ] Do not frame it as potential — "could do the next level" loses to "is already doing it"
• ] Do not pad with low-level wins — they signal you're operating below the target level
• ] Do not submit with known gaps to "see what happens" — a failed packet is costly; close gaps first

Based On

Engineering/IC ladder promotion practice — operate-at-level evidence mapped to a competency rubric.