Career Path, a shared framework for evaluating design skills

Problem addressed

Without a shared framework, every manager evaluates against their own grid. Designers do not know how to progress, evaluations diverge between managers, and improvement areas are experienced as arbitrary rather than objectifiable. The result is a team working with no shared reference point on growth.

Steps

The method in 6 steps

1. Step 1

   Formalize the expected skills

   List the expected skills, group them into coherent families (product design, research, relational posture, system contribution, etc.), and create a graduated level system. Four levels are enough to carry a readable career trajectory without falling into over-granularity.

2. Step 2

   Define the evaluation scale

   Set clear criteria for each level: 'Being acquired', 'Acquired and stabilized', 'Exceeded and mastered'. The scale must be precise enough to differentiate two close profiles, and flexible enough not to penalize atypical ones.

3. Step 3

   Double evaluation, designer and manager in parallel

   Each designer fills in their Career Path on their own. In parallel, the manager does the same, without seeing the answers. This separation is the key: it reveals the perception gaps, which are precisely what the 1:1 conversation needs to work on.

4. Step 4

   Calibration between managers

   Managers align on their ratings before sharing with their teams. The same skill cannot be worth a level 3 with one manager and a level 1 with another, otherwise the framework loses its value instantly. Calibration is laborious, and that is what guarantees consistency for the rest of the year.

5. Step 5

   Share in 1:1, gaps and growth areas

   Individual sessions between manager and designer to compare the ratings, name the perception gaps, and define the improvement areas. This moment is not an audit, it is a conversation. The grid is there to open the discussion, not to close it.

6. Step 6

   Adjust the method after the first cycle

   After the first full run, identify the points where ratings diverged because the grid was misunderstood (not because of genuine disagreement) and clarify the framework. The first cycle evaluates the grid itself as much as it evaluates the designers.

Success conditions

What tells you it works

• Designers and managers use the same grid to talk about the same skills, without having to point each other to external definitions
• Gaps between self-evaluation and manager evaluation are named and worked on explicitly rather than swept under the rug
• The framework is used in 1:1s and annual reviews, not only at a one-off administrative evaluation moment
• A new person on the team can pick up the grid and know what is expected of them over the next 6 months

Contraindications

When not to use it

• × The design team is smaller than 4 or 5 people, the calibration overhead between managers is not worth it
• × Managers are not aligned on what a design skill is (to be settled upstream, otherwise the grid amplifies the disagreement)
• × The organization already uses a global HR framework that constrains design evaluations (the framework must then graft onto it, not replace it)
• × The real need is handling a difficult individual case, not structuring collective growth. The Career Path does not replace an HR discussion

Applied examples

Where the method has lived

• PrestaShop, design team distributed across several squads, rolled out in 2025.

  Framework adopted by managers and designers, measurable manager alignment after the calibration phase, improvement areas worked on in 1:1 over the following cycle.

Going further