Foundation
Architecture & Governance
The shared structural backbone that all four discipline ladders are built on — level definitions, track transitions, AI fluency policy, and review cadence.
Level architecture
IC track
| Level | Title (generic) | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| I | Associate | Task scope |
| II | Professional | Feature scope |
| III | Senior | Product area scope |
| IV | Staff | Cross-product scope |
| V | Sr. Staff | Domain scope |
| VI | Principal | Org-wide scope |
Management track
| Level | Title (generic) | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| IV | Manager | Team scope (3–7 ICs) |
| V | Sr. Manager | Multi-team scope |
| VI | Director | Org-wide scope |
| VII | Sr. Director | Company scope |
On level equivalency: IC Level IV (Staff) and Management Level IV (Manager) sit in the same company pay band. Equal level does not mean identical expectations or influence model. Staff ICs lead through craft and systems thinking. Managers lead through people and process.
Track transitions
IC to management
- Eligibility opens at Level III
- A structured trial period (typically one quarter) precedes formal title change
- Transition confirmed by SVP with People org input
- The individual should want this transition — it is not an assignment
Management to IC
- Supported at any level and normalized in this framework
- Not treated as a demotion
- Level mapping is negotiated transparently with honest competency assessment
- Craft re-entry support is provided with dedicated time allocated
Lateral moves (across disciplines)
- Supported at equivalent levels
- The receiving discipline's ladder governs the competency assessment
- A skill gap analysis is produced before transition completes
- Level may adjust by one step in either direction — documented upfront
AI fluency
AI fluency is a required competency at every level across all disciplines. It is not an elective. The company provides structured learning time, hack events, and tooling access. Progression on AI fluency is a standing development conversation item.
AI fluency is not about using every available tool. It is about developing judgment — knowing when AI accelerates good work, when it produces plausible-but-wrong output, and when human skill is the irreplaceable value. That judgment scales with level.
| Level | Expectation |
|---|---|
| I–II | Uses AI for execution tasks. Applies design judgment to evaluate output. Participates in learning events. |
| III | Integrates AI across the full workflow. Builds reusable workflows for the team. Evaluates tools critically. Considers ethical implications. |
| IV | Shapes AI strategy for their scope. Develops point of view on how AI is changing the discipline itself. Managers: track team AI fluency and address gaps directly. |
| V–VI | Shapes company approach to AI in design at the strategic level. Contributes to external conversation. Develops frameworks others use. Identifies capability curves ahead of time. |
Governance
- Primary stakeholder: SVP of Design
- Annual review: Framework reviewed and updated in Q4 each year
- Living skills addendum: AI fluency and emerging skills documented separately, updated annually
- Visibility: Publicly visible to all employees from publication date
- People org role: Consulted on compensation band alignment
- Calibration: Cross-manager calibration runs annually before the assessment cycle closes