Promotion Criteria Dispute
An employee was passed over for promotion in favor of a less-experienced colleague. The manager says the promoted person has better leadership skills.
Alex
Side A
I have more experience, better performance metrics, and seniority — the promotion criteria weren't applied fairly.
You've been at the company 5 years with consistently exceeding expectations reviews. Your colleague has 2 years tenure. You have more certifications, higher sales numbers, and mentored 3 junior employees. The promotion criteria listed 'experience, performance, and leadership' — you lead on all three. You suspect favoritism or bias.
Jordan
Side B
The promotion was based on leadership potential and cross-functional impact, not just tenure and metrics.
You're the hiring manager. The promoted employee led a cross-functional initiative that saved $500K, built relationships across departments, and has a more strategic mindset. The passed-over employee is an excellent individual contributor but hasn't demonstrated the leadership and vision needed for the senior role. Tenure and metrics aren't the only criteria.
Expected Outcomes
Scored from Side A's perspective. Positive = favors Alex, Negative = favors Jordan.
Promotion reversed or second senior role created for Alex based on documented criteria
Alex given a promotion track with clear milestones and a guaranteed review in 6 months
Promotion stands but Alex gets a raise, title bump, and transparent criteria going forward
Promotion upheld; Alex given feedback on leadership gaps with vague future development plan
Promotion fully upheld; strategic leadership valued over tenure and individual metrics