{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "skill_name": "org-design",
  "evals": [
    {"id":"team-topology","prompt":"Design teams for a product company with overloaded platform engineers.","expected_output":"A topology decision maps value streams, cognitive load, dependencies, boundaries, decision rights, and a reversible pilot.","assertions":["Maps value streams and team responsibilities","Addresses cognitive load and dependency load","Defines boundaries, APIs or interaction modes, and decision rights","Sets pilot measures and review date","Separates topology from technical implementation ownership"]},
    {"id":"talent-make-buy","prompt":"Decide whether to hire, develop, or contract for a missing data skill.","expected_output":"A talent decision compares make, buy, and borrow options using urgency, capability depth, cost, risk, and succession evidence.","assertions":["Compares make, buy, and borrow options","Uses urgency, capability depth, cost, and risk criteria","Includes succession and knowledge-transfer considerations","Names assumptions and evidence to validate","Routes execution into implementation planning"]},
    {"id":"compensation-leveling","prompt":"Create equitable leveling and compensation bands during a reorganization.","expected_output":"A framework defines role architecture, benchmark assumptions, calibration, equity checks, communication, and legal/HR review gates.","assertions":["Separates role leveling from individual performance","States market benchmark and pay-band assumptions","Includes calibration and equity checks","Defines communication and review cadence","Requires HR and counsel review for jurisdiction-specific employment implications"]},
    {"id":"culture-health","prompt":"Employee engagement fell after rapid hiring. Design a response.","expected_output":"A health decision triangulates survey, retention, qualitative, and inclusion signals, then tests bounded interventions with owners and stop rules.","assertions":["Triangulates quantitative and qualitative signals","Distinguishes silence from approval","Includes inclusion and retention-risk measures","Defines intervention owners and a review cadence","Sets measurable outcomes and stop or revise rules"]},
    {"id":"reorg-decision","prompt":"Evaluate a proposed reorganization that changes reporting lines and roles.","expected_output":"A decision record compares options, impacts, decision rights, consultation, talent risks, evidence, and counsel escalation where needed.","assertions":["Compares alternatives against strategy and capability needs","Documents reporting, role, and decision-right changes","Identifies employee, equity, and retention risks","Includes consultation and dissent records","Escalates employment-law questions to legal counsel"]}
  ]
}

# Compensation Frameworks

## Market Benchmarking

### The Three Sources Approach

Cross-reference three sources to determine market pay:

| Source | Pros | Cons | Use for |
|--------|------|------|---------|
| **Radford/Aon** | Comprehensive tech data, global | Expensive, requires subscription | All tech roles |
| **Levels.fyi / Glassdoor** | Transparent, real-time | Self-reported, noisy | Benchmarking reality vs surveys |
| **Payscale / Compensation.com** | Broad coverage, good for non-tech | Less tech-specific | G&A, marketing, operations |
| **Industry-specific** (e.g., Culpepper) | Niche role coverage | Industry-specific only | Biotech, finance |

### Market Positioning Strategy

| Position | Definition | When to use |
|----------|------------|-------------|
| **P10** (lagging) | Below market median | Cost-constrained, non-core roles, non-competitive labor market |
| **P50** (market) | At market median | Standard positioning for most roles |
| **P75** (leading) | Above market median | Critical roles, hard-to-fill skills, competitive market |
| **P90** (premium) | Top of market | Executive talent, scarcity-driven roles, strategic hires |

### Geography Adjustments

Apply location-based multipliers to base pay:

| Location Tier | Multiplier (typical) | Examples |
|---------------|---------------------|----------|
| Tier 1 (Premium) | 1.0x (base) | San Francisco, NYC, London |
| Tier 2 (Major metro) | 0.85-0.95x | Seattle, Chicago, Berlin |
| Tier 3 (Secondary) | 0.75-0.85x | Austin, Denver, Dublin |
| Tier 4 (Remote/Rest) | 0.65-0.75x | Rural US, lower-cost regions |

**Remote-first trend:** Many companies are moving to location-independent pay or a single national band. Tradeoff: hiring efficiency vs compensation equity.

## Equity Design

### Equity Instruments

| Instrument | Description | Typical for |
|------------|-------------|-------------|
| **ISO** (Incentive Stock Options) | Tax-advantaged options, $100K/yr limit per employee | Employees at VC-backed companies |
| **NSO** (Non-Qualified Stock Options) | Standard options, no limit | Employees, contractors, advisors |
| **RSU** (Restricted Stock Units) | Actual shares vest over time | Public companies, late-stage private |
| **SAR** (Stock Appreciation Rights) | Cash payout equal to share appreciation | Private companies wanting option-like economics without dilution |
| **ESPP** (Employee Stock Purchase Plan) | Discounted stock purchase (typically 15%) | Public companies |

### Equity Grant Benchmarks

| Level | Grant range (% of pool) | Grant range ($ value, private tech) |
|-------|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
| **Junior IC** | 0.02-0.05% | $10K-$50K |
| **Mid IC** | 0.05-0.15% | $50K-$150K |
| **Senior IC** | 0.15-0.30% | $150K-$350K |
| **Staff IC** | 0.20-0.40% | $350K-$600K |
| **Principal IC** | 0.30-0.60% | $500K-$1M+ |
| **Director** | 0.25-0.40% | $400K-$800K |
| **VP** | 0.50-1.00% | $800K-$2M |
| **C-Suite** | 1.00-3.00% | $2M-$5M+ |

*Ranges are at Series B stage. Earlier: higher percentages, lower valuations. Later: lower percentages, higher valuations.*

### Vesting Schedules

| Schedule | Standard | Alternative |
|----------|----------|-------------|
| **Cliff (initial)** | 1 year | None (rare; attracts risk of early departures) |
| **Vesting (full)** | 4 years | 3 years (faster liquidity for talent), 5 years (longer retention) |
| **Vesting type** | Monthly (standard) | Quarterly (simpler admin), Annual (very rare) |
| **Acceleration** | Single trigger (acquired: unvested accelerates) | Double trigger (acquired + terminated: unvested accelerates) |

## Leveling & Career Banding

### Comp Band Structure

| Level | Title (Engineering example) | Base band | Equity band | Total comp target |
|-------|----------------------------|-----------|-------------|-------------------|
| L3 | Junior Engineer | $80K-$120K | $10K-$30K/yr | $90K-$150K |
| L4 | Engineer | $100K-$150K | $30K-$60K/yr | $130K-$210K |
| L5 | Senior Engineer | $130K-$190K | $60K-$120K/yr | $190K-$310K |
| L6 | Staff Engineer | $160K-$230K | $120K-$200K/yr | $280K-$430K |
| L7 | Principal Engineer | $190K-$280K | $200K-$350K/yr | $390K-$630K |

### Compensation Philosophy Principles

1. **Pay for performance, not tenure** — Raises and bonuses correlate with impact, not time in seat
2. **Transparent bands** — Employees know the range for their level, reducing negotiation advantage and bias
3. **Internal equity** — Similar contribution receives similar comp regardless of negotiation skill or tenure
4. **Market-driven** — Bands adjust with market, not by individual request
5. **Total comp mindset** — Base + bonus + equity + benefits = total value. Communicate it that way.

## Variable Pay & Incentives

| Type | Who | Structure | Payout |
|------|-----|-----------|--------|
| **Annual bonus** | All employees | % of base (10-20% IC, 20-50% exec) | Based on company + individual performance |
| **Sales commission** | Sales team | % of ARR/bookings (10-20% SMB, 5-10% enterprise) | Paid on closed deals |
| **Spot bonus** | Any | One-time cash award ($500-$5,000) | Immediate recognition |
| **Retention bonus** | Critical at-risk talent | Lump sum with clawback | At anniversary or milestone |
| **Sign-on bonus** | New hires | One-time cash + possible clawback | At start date |

## Compensation Reviews

| Review type | Cadence | What changes |
|-------------|---------|-------------|
| **Merit increase** | Annual | Base salary adjustment (3-5% typical, higher for high performers) |
| **Promotion** | As earned | Level change, base increase (10-20% typical), equity refresh |
| **Equity refresh** | Annual or on promotion | Additional equity grant (new vesting schedule) |
| **Market correction** | Ad hoc | Base adjustment when market moves significantly between reviews |
| **Cost of living adjustment** | Annual (if separate from merit) | Across-the-board % increase |

# Culture Architecture

## Values Codification

### Writing Meaningful Values

Values are not aspirational statements — they are behavioral commitments that describe how work gets done.

| Bad value | Why it fails | Good value | Why it works |
|-----------|-------------|------------|--------------|
| "Integrity" | Everyone claims it; means nothing specific | "Default to Transparency" | Actionable: share information even when it's uncomfortable |
| "Innovation" | Too vague; can't measure | "Bias for Action" | Directional: move fast over perfect |
| "Customer First" | Everyone says it; no tradeoff | "Customer Obsession" | Specific: go to unreasonable lengths for the customer |
| "Teamwork" | No behavioral anchor | "Disagree and Commit" | Normative: debate openly, commit to decision |

### The Values Template

Each value should have:

```
Name: [One memorable word or phrase]
Catchphrase: [One sentence — the principle itself]
Definition: [2-3 sentences explaining what it means]
Behavioral examples:
  - [What it looks like in practice]
  - [What it looks like in practice]
  - [What it looks like in practice]
Tradeoffs: [What you're willing to sacrifice to uphold this value]
```

### Values in Practice

| Process | How values are embedded |
|---------|------------------------|
| **Hiring** | Behavioral interview questions tied to values |
| **Performance reviews** | Values assessed alongside results |
| **Promotion decisions** | Demonstrated values over time required for advancement |
| **Firing decisions** | Values violations can be grounds regardless of performance |
| **Strategy** | "Does this decision align with our values?" as a strategic filter |

## Rituals

### Cadence of Rituals

| Frequency | Ritual | Purpose |
|-----------|--------|---------|
| **Daily** | Standup | Alignment, blockers, small wins |
| **Weekly** | Team lunch / coffee | Social connection |
| **Bi-weekly** | Demo day | Show progress, celebrate work |
| **Monthly** | All-hands | Transparency, strategy, recognition |
| **Quarterly** | OKR review / planning | Goal alignment, reflection |
| **Semi-annual** | Hackathon / innovation week | Creativity, cross-team connections |
| **Annual** | Company offsite | Strategy, culture building, bonding |

### Cultural Rituals — Examples

| Ritual Type | Description | Example |
|-------------|-------------|---------|
| **Recognition** | Public acknowledgment of values-aligned behavior | "Kudos" channel, monthly awards |
| **Learning** | Structured knowledge sharing | Tech talks, book clubs, lunch-and-learn |
| **Debate** | Healthy disagreement structured into process | Red team / blue team reviews, pre-mortems |
| **Onboarding** | Culture immersion for new hires | First-week values deep-dive, buddy system |
| **Retrospective** | Regular process improvement | Sprint retro, incident post-mortem (blameless) |
| **Offboarding** | Knowledge preservation and relationship | Exit interview, knowledge base handoff |

## Psychological Safety

### The Four Stages (Timothy Clark)

| Stage | Description | Team behavior |
|-------|-------------|---------------|
| **1. Inclusion Safety** | I belong here | Members feel welcomed and valued for who they are |
| **2. Learner Safety** | I can learn and grow here | Members feel safe to ask questions, make mistakes, admit gaps |
| **3. Contributor Safety** | I can make a difference here | Members feel safe to contribute ideas and effort |
| **4. Challenger Safety** | I can speak up and challenge here | Members feel safe to disagree, push back, and innovate |

### Measuring Psychological Safety

| Signal | Strong team | Weak team |
|--------|-------------|-----------|
| **Meeting participation** | Everyone speaks roughly equally | Dominated by 1-2 voices |
| **Admitting mistakes** | "I was wrong about that" is common | Mistakes are hidden or blamed |
| **Asking for help** | People regularly ask for input | People struggle alone |
| **Disagreement** | Respectful debate is the norm | Disagreement is avoided or escalates |
| **Failure response** | Treated as learning opportunity | Treated as performance failure |

### Building Psychological Safety

| Technique | Description |
|-----------|-------------|
| **Leader vulnerability** | Leaders model admitting mistakes and asking for help |
| **Framing work as learning** | "This is uncertain — we'll learn as we go" rather than "Execute perfectly" |
| **Setting explicit permission** | "I want everyone to challenge this plan — that's how we make it better" |
| **Responding productively** | When someone disagrees or admits a mistake, thank them and engage constructively |
| **Blameless post-mortems** | Focus on systems and processes, not individuals |
| **Encouraging questions** | No question is too basic; create dedicated "question time" |

## Organizational Health Metrics

### eNPS (Employee Net Promoter Score)

```
eNPS = % Promoters - % Detractors

Question: "How likely are you to recommend [company] as a place to work?"
Scale: 0-10
  Promoters (9-10): Loyal, engaged
  Passives (7-8): Satisfied but unenthusiastic
  Detractors (0-6): Unhappy, likely to leave
```

**Benchmarks:**
| Score | Rating |
|-------|--------|
| >50 | Excellent |
| 30-50 | Good |
| 10-29 | Average |
| <10 | Concerning |

### Employee Engagement Drivers

| Driver | Weight (typical) | Measurement |
|--------|------------------|-------------|
| **Meaningful work** | 25% | "My work uses my skills well" |
| **Manager quality** | 20% | "My manager supports my development" |
| **Growth opportunity** | 20% | "I see a path for advancement" |
| **Compensation** | 15% | "I'm paid fairly for my role" |
| **Work environment** | 10% | "I have the tools and resources I need" |
| **Company direction** | 10% | "I believe in where the company is headed" |

### Retention Risk Indicators

| Indicator | Risk level | Intervention |
|-----------|------------|--------------|
| Low engagement score | Medium | Targeted manager coaching, skip-level |
| No promotion in 3+ years | Medium | Career pathing conversation |
| Compensation below market | High | Comp adjustment (equity or cash) |
| Manager change | Medium | Check-in after 90 days |
| Org restructuring | High | Communication, engagement pulse |
| High-performer quiet quitting | Critical | Stay interview, root cause analysis |

## DEI Strategy

### Inclusive Design Principles

| Principle | Application |
|-----------|-------------|
| **Representation** | Diverse perspectives in product design, hiring panels, leadership |
| **Equitable access** | Remove barriers: accommodation, accessibility, flexible work |
| **Belonging** | Ensure all groups feel valued and included |
| **Equity over equality** | Different groups need different support to achieve equal outcomes |

### DEI Maturity Model

| Stage | Characteristics | Activities |
|-------|-----------------|------------|
| **1. Compliance** | Do the minimum to avoid legal risk | Anti-harassment training, EEO reporting |
| **2. Awareness** | Recognize gaps, start programs | Unconscious bias training, diversity recruiting |
| **3. Integration** | Embed DEI into processes | Diverse slates, pay equity audits, ERGs |
| **4. Accountability** | Measure outcomes, hold leaders responsible | DEI metrics in performance reviews, board diversity targets |
| **5. Systemic** | DEI is part of how the organization operates | Product accessibility, supplier diversity, inclusive design standards |

# Organization Design Decision Workflow

Use this workflow for topology, talent, reward, and culture choices; do not treat it as employment-law advice or a project plan.

## Repeatable Method

1. **Frame inputs:** strategy and value streams, required capabilities, team boundaries, decision rights, headcount/cash limits, locations, talent data, and employee experience risks.
2. **Model options:** compare topology and talent alternatives using cognitive load, dependencies, span, skill coverage, equity, manager capacity, and reversibility. Make assumptions explicit.
3. **Decide with gates:** choose only with accountable executives, role/decision-right artifacts, measurable health and delivery outcomes, consultation plan, and legal/employee-relations review where relevant.
4. **Validate:** pilot boundaries or hiring plan; review cycle time, dependency load, retention/engagement signals, inclusion impacts, and regretted attrition. Adjust without treating survey silence as approval.
5. **Package evidence:** maintain topology map, capability/talent matrix, leveling/reward assumptions, consultation record, risks, and review date using `artifact-pyramids`.

## Worked Example

A 60-person product company has overloaded platform engineers and slow releases. The decision creates one stream-aligned product team and a small platform team with explicit APIs and an enabling rotation. A 90-day pilot targets fewer cross-team dependencies, stable on-call load, and improved lead time; compensation changes are not inferred from topology and go through HR and counsel review.

## Reusable Artifact

```text
Org design decision record
Strategy/value stream / owner / date / review date
Capabilities and current topology:
Options, assumptions, equity and employee risks:
Decision rights, team boundaries, roles and spans:
Talent/reward implications and consultation:
Pilot measures (delivery, health, inclusion) and stop rules:
Evidence, dissent, approvals, and next review:
```

## Routing Matrix

| Need | Route to | Handoff in / out |
|---|---|---|
| Strategy and portfolio choice | [strategy-frameworks](../../strategy-frameworks/SKILL.md) | Capability constraint in; strategic choice out |
| Headcount or compensation economics | [financial-modeling](../../financial-modeling/SKILL.md) | Staffing assumptions in; scenario cost out |
| Technology capability evaluation | [technology-radar](../../technology-radar/SKILL.md) | Capability need in; technology options out |
| Hiring/reorg implementation | [implementation-planning](../../implementation-planning/SKILL.md) | Approved design in; sequenced work out |
| Evidence dossier | [artifact-pyramids](../../artifact-pyramids/SKILL.md) | Decisions and consultation record in; durable index out |
| Employment-law interpretation | [legal-strategy](../../legal-strategy/SKILL.md) | Proposed change in; counsel questions/constraints out |

Do not create a Phase 2 people specialty sibling. Route legal interpretation to counsel and delivery sequencing to implementation planning.

# Organizational Design

## Team Topologies

The four fundamental team types, from Matthew Skelton and Manuel Pais:

### Stream-Aligned Team

Aligned to a single, valuable stream of work (product, service, feature, user journey).

| Characteristic | Description |
|----------------|-------------|
| **Focus** | Delivering value directly to the end customer |
| **Skills** | Cross-functional — development, testing, operations, product |
| **Boundary** | Owns one stream end-to-end |
| **Cognitive load** | Matched to the complexity of the stream |
| **Interaction mode** | Collaborates with enabling teams for capability building |

**When to use:** Default team type for most modern product development. One team per stream of value.

### Enabling Team

Supports stream-aligned teams by building capabilities in specific technical domains.

| Characteristic | Description |
|----------------|-------------|
| **Focus** | Increasing the effectiveness of other teams |
| **Skills** | Deep expertise in a specific domain (CI/CD, security, testing, observability) |
| **Boundary** | No permanent code ownership — builds capabilities, not products |
| **Lifecycle** | Exists as long as the capability gap exists |
| **Interaction mode** | Collaborates (short bursts) → transitions to facilitating (long-term) |

**When to use:** When stream-aligned teams lack capability in a critical domain. Enable them to become self-sufficient, then dissolve or move to the next gap.

### Complicated-Subsystem Team

Owns a subsystem that requires specialized, deep expertise.

| Characteristic | Description |
|----------------|-------------|
| **Focus** | Building and maintaining a technically complex component |
| **Skills** | Deep specialization in one domain (video encoding engine, ML model, payment reconciliation) |
| **Boundary** | Clear, well-defined API boundary with the rest of the system |
| **Interaction mode** | X-as-a-Service — stream-aligned teams consume via API |

**When to use:** When a subsystem's complexity exceeds what a stream-aligned team can reasonably carry. The cognitive load of the subsystem is isolated to one team.

### Platform Team

Provides internal services and tools that reduce the cognitive load of stream-aligned teams.

| Characteristic | Description |
|----------------|-------------|
| **Focus** | Building internal developer platform capabilities |
| **Skills** | Platform engineering, infrastructure, developer experience |
| **Boundary** | Self-service APIs and tools that stream-aligned teams consume |
| **Interaction mode** | X-as-a-Service — platform team provides, stream teams consume |
| **Mindset** | Platform is a product; stream teams are the customers |

**When to use:** Beyond 5-8 stream-aligned teams, a platform team becomes necessary to prevent fragmentation and toil.

### Team Topologies Interaction Modes

| Mode | Description | When to use |
|------|-------------|-------------|
| **Collaboration** | Two teams work together for a limited time on a shared goal | New capability discovery, integration points |
| **X-as-a-Service** | One team consumes another's service via a well-defined interface | Platform → stream, complicated-subsystem → stream |
| **Facilitating** | One team helps another develop a capability, then steps back | Enabling → stream-aligned teams |

## Span of Control

| Layer | Ideal span | Notes |
|-------|------------|-------|
| **First-line manager** | 4-8 direct reports | Hands-on coaching, career development, technical guidance |
| **Director** | 3-6 managers | Coordination, strategy translation, resource allocation |
| **VP** | 3-5 directors | Organizational strategy, cross-functional alignment |
| **C-Suite** | 4-8 VPs/C-suite | Enterprise strategy, external representation |

**Rule of thumb:** The more complex and interdependent the work, the narrower the span. The more standardized and independent, the wider.

### The Dunbar-Heuristic for Teams

- **5-8 people**: Optimal for stream-aligned teams (all members can maintain high-bandwidth relationships)
- **15-20 people**: Maximum for a single manager's span in complex work
- **50-150 people**: "Dunbar number" — maximum for a community where everyone can know each other
- **>150 people**: Formal processes, hierarchy, and systems are required

## Reporting Structures

### Functional (Traditional)

```
CEO
├── Engineering VP
│   ├── Engineering Manager → 5 engineers
│   └── Engineering Manager → 6 engineers
├── Product VP
│   ├── PM Director → 3 PMs
│   └── Design Director → 4 designers
└── Marketing VP
    ├── Growth Director → 4 marketers
    └── Brand Director → 3 marketers
```

**Best for:** Stable organizations, deep specialization, clear career ladders
**Worst for:** Cross-functional collaboration, customer-centricity

### Matrix

```
                    Product A        Product B        Product C
Engineering         Eng lead A       Eng lead B       Eng lead C
Design              Designer A       Designer B       Designer C
Product             PM A             PM B             PM C
```

**Best for:** Resource sharing across multiple priorities
**Worst for:** Clear decision-making, dual reporting creates tension

### Product/Stream-Aligned (Modern)

```
CEO
├── Stream Alpha (cross-functional team)
├── Stream Beta (cross-functional team)
├── Platform Team
└── Enabling Team (CI/CD)
```

**Best for:** Speed, autonomy, customer focus
**Worst for:** Deep specialization (mitigated by enabling teams and communities of practice)

## Organizational Health Metrics

| Metric | What it measures | Diagnostic |
|--------|-----------------|------------|
| **Span of control ratio** | Middle management efficiency | >1:8 suggests potential bottlenecks or micromanagement |
| **Org depth** | Levels from IC to CEO | >5 levels slows decision-making |
| **Team size distribution** | How many teams are at optimal size | >8 members per team → likely fragmentation |
| **Dependency count** | Cross-team blockers | High → reorganize to reduce (Conway's Law) |
| **Decision velocity** | Time from proposal to decision | >2 weeks for operational decisions → process is broken |
| **Manager-to-IC ratio** | Proportion of people managers vs individual contributors | >1:3 might indicate too many managers |

# Talent Strategy

## Make vs Buy

The fundamental talent decision — build capability internally or acquire it externally.

### Decision Matrix

| Factor | Make (Build/Develop) | Buy (Hire/Contract) |
|--------|---------------------|---------------------|
| **Time horizon** | Long-term capability (>2 years) | Immediate need (<6 months) |
| **Strategic importance** | Core competency, competitive advantage | Commodity skill, non-core |
| **Availability** | Plentiful in the market | Scarce or specialized |
| **Development cost** | Low (existing employees who can grow) | High (training new hires or contractors from scratch) |
| **Risk** | Takes time, may not succeed | Immediate, but higher hiring cost |

### The Build Playbook

| Phase | Action | Timeline |
|-------|--------|----------|
| **Assess** | Skills gap analysis, career path mapping | 2-4 weeks |
| **Plan** | Individual development plans, stretch assignments | 4 weeks |
| **Execute** | Training, mentorship, rotation programs | 6-24 months |
| **Measure** | Competency assessments, promotion readiness | Quarterly |

### The Buy Playbook

| Phase | Action | Timeline |
|-------|--------|----------|
| **Define** | Role scope, must-have vs nice-to-have skills | 1-2 weeks |
| **Source** | Internal referral, external recruiter, direct sourcing | 2-6 weeks |
| **Assess** | Technical interview, behavioral, work sample | 2-4 weeks |
| **Close** | Offer, negotiate, onboard | 2-4 weeks |

## Skill Taxonomies

### Building a Skills Framework

A skills taxonomy organizes capabilities into a hierarchy that maps to career progression, compensation, and learning.

```
Level 0: Core competencies (leadership, communication, collaboration)
Level 1: Function-specific skills (engineering: system design, testing)
Level 2: Domain expertise (frontend: React, TypeScript, accessibility)
Level 3: Deep specialization (real-time graphics rendering, distributed consensus)
```

### Skills Matrix Example (Engineering)

| Skill | L1 (Junior) | L2 (Mid) | L3 (Senior) | L4 (Staff) | L5 (Principal) |
|-------|-------------|----------|-------------|------------|-----------------|
| **System design** | Understands components | Designs within a service | Designs across services | Architecture for org | Architecture for industry |
| **Code quality** | Writes functional code | Writes testable code | Writes maintainable code | Sets standards | Advances the craft |
| **Mentorship** | Asks good questions | Helps peers | Mentors juniors | Develops org capability | Grows the industry |
| **Impact** | Owned tasks | Owned features | Owned epics | Owned org strategy | Owned company strategy |

## Succession Planning

### Pipeline Coverage

| Role | Ready Now | Ready in 1-2 years | Ready in 3-5 years |
|------|-----------|--------------------|--------------------|
| CEO | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| CTO | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| VP Engineering | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Director | 3 | 4 | 4 |

**Bench strength:** For every critical role, you should have at least one person ready now and 2-3 in the pipeline.

### Succession Planning Process

```
Identify critical roles
    ↓
Define success criteria (competencies, experience, results)
    ↓
Assess current pipeline against criteria
    ↓
Identify gaps → Develop gap-closure plan
    ├── Targeted development assignments
    ├── Sponsorship (executive visibility)
    ├── Formal training / executive education
    └── External hire (if gap can't be closed internally)
    ↓
Review quarterly (not annually — pipeline changes fast)
```

### The 9-Box Grid (Performance × Potential)

| | Low Potential | Medium Potential | High Potential |
|---|--------------|-----------------|----------------|
| **High Performance** | Sustainer (support, don't promote) | Rising Star (develop for next level) | High Potential (accelerate development) |
| **Medium Performance** | Low Performer (PIP or exit) | Core Contributor (stable, valued) | Growth Opportunity (stretch assignment) |
| **Low Performance** | Exit Candidate | Underperformer (coach or exit) | Misaligned (role mismatch) |

## Talent Review Cadence

| Frequency | Activity | Participants |
|-----------|----------|--------------|
| **Weekly** | 1:1s — coaching, feedback, growth | Manager + direct report |
| **Monthly** | Talent spot check — emerging concerns, flight risks | Manager + skip-level (optional) |
| **Quarterly** | Talent review — performance calibration, promotions, pipeline assessment | Leadership team + HRBP |
| **Annually** | Strategic workforce planning — org design, skill forecasts, succession deep-dive | Executive team + HR leadership |

## Key Talent Risk Indicators

| Signal | Risk | Action |
|--------|------|--------|
| Low engagement score (eNPS <10) | Retention risk | Engagement survey follow-up, skip-level meetings |
| Decline in performance review rating | Burnout or misalignment | Check-in with manager, workload review |
| No promotion in 3+ years | Stagnation risk | Career discussion, development plan |
| Counter-offer declined | Exit risk | Stay interview, understand drivers |
| Multiple team members leaving | Manager risk | 360-degree review of the manager |
| Market competitor hiring spree | Talent raid risk | Compensation review, retention bonuses for critical roles |