Modern talent strategies increasingly recognize that not all high performers aspire to management. Building robust, parallel career tracks for Individual Contributors (ICs) and People Managers is not just a nod to fairness—it’s a business imperative for attracting, retaining, and engaging talent across technical, creative, and analytical domains. In this article, I outline a rigorous approach for designing and operationalizing dual track progression frameworks, comparing key parameters, and offering practical artifacts for organizations scaling these systems globally.
Rationale for Dual Track Progression
Organizational growth often exposes the limits of a “one ladder” approach, where advancement means moving into management. For many ICs—engineers, designers, data scientists—forced transitions dilute expertise and create disengagement. According to Harvard Business Review, organizations offering flexible growth pathways report improved retention and a higher share of “regretted stays.” Structure is especially critical in the U.S. and E.U. tech and knowledge sectors, where flattening hierarchies and remote work further blur traditional career signals.
“Dual career ladders recognize that excellence and leadership can take different forms. They help companies keep great technical talent—and help technical talent stay great.”
— Tomasz Tunguz, Venture Capitalist, Redpoint
Core Elements: Levels, Transitions, and Evaluation
Both tracks—IC and Manager—should be built on clearly articulated levels, each with unambiguous expectations, sample competencies, and promotion criteria. This clarity supports equitable decisions and mitigates bias, aligning with GDPR and EEOC standards.
Defining Levels: Sample Structure
| Level | IC Track | Manager Track | Key Competencies |
|---|---|---|---|
| L3 | Senior Specialist | Team Lead | Autonomous execution, basic mentoring, project delivery |
| L4 | Principal/Lead IC | Manager | Strategic impact, cross-team influence, process improvement |
| L5 | Staff/Distinguished IC | Senior Manager | Org-wide leadership, innovation, talent development |
| L6 | Fellow/Chief IC | Director/Head | Vision-setting, external influence, business impact |
Titles and specifics will vary by geography and industry, but the principle holds: ICs can progress in scope, autonomy, and impact without managing people. Each level should have a corresponding scorecard or set of outcome-based criteria.
Transitioning Between Tracks
Some organizations allow lateral moves between IC and Manager tracks, typically at defined “gateway” levels (often L3/L4). Transitions should be supported by a transparent process including:
- RACI-based intake brief (clarifying Responsibilities, Accountability, Consulted, Informed)
- Structured interviews with behavioral (STAR/BEI) and technical components
- Manager/IC shadowing or “tryout” periods
- Peer and stakeholder feedback
It is crucial to de-stigmatize both “stepping up” and “stepping back.” A well-designed system treats movement between tracks as a strategic career choice, not a demotion or default.
Compensation Philosophy: Parity and Transparency
One of the most common pitfalls is under-compensating ICs relative to managers. Leading organizations in the U.S. and E.U. (e.g., Google, Meta, Siemens) emphasize compensation parity—an L4 IC should be paid on par with an L4 Manager, adjusted for market benchmarks and role-specific scarcity.
Effective compensation frameworks typically blend:
- External market data (salary surveys, regional benchmarks)
- Internal equity (level-to-level comparison for fairness)
- Performance and value creation (not just tenure or headcount managed)
Compensation transparency, within legal and cultural norms, helps guard against bias and improves offer acceptance rates. According to Payscale, organizations with clear pay bands see up to 30% higher employee engagement.
Cadence and Artifacts of Evaluation
For both tracks, evaluation should be regular, documented, and multi-source. A typical cadence includes:
- Quarterly check-ins (progress against goals, feedback)
- Annual or bi-annual promotion reviews (with calibration across teams)
- Ad hoc feedback via peer reviews, 360s, or project retrospectives
Documented tools include:
- Intake brief — clarifies role objectives, key deliverables, and success metrics at each level
- Scorecard — lists competencies, behaviors, and outcome targets
- Structured interview guides — for both technical and leadership assessment
- Promotion packet — a portfolio of evidence supporting a promotion case (see below)
Promotion Packet Outline (Sample)
| Section | Description |
|---|---|
| Role Overview | Summary of current responsibilities and scope |
| Key Results | Evidence of impact (projects, metrics, stakeholder feedback) |
| Competency Self-Assessment | Reflection mapped to level expectations and scorecard |
| Peer/Manager Feedback | Structured quotes or 360 summaries |
| Development Plan | Areas for growth, training, and next steps |
Promotion packets should be reviewed by a diverse panel to ensure fairness and minimize bias, especially in cross-cultural or international contexts.
Comparison Matrix: IC vs. Manager Tracks
| Dimension | IC Path | Manager Path |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Focus | Technical/subject matter depth, innovation, project leadership | People development, operational delivery, team performance |
| Typical Deliverables | Technical designs, code, analysis, patents, best practices | Hiring, onboarding, performance management, culture shaping |
| Evaluation Metrics | Quality-of-hire, project impact, peer recognition, knowledge sharing | Team engagement, retention, time-to-hire, offer-accept, 90-day retention |
| Scope of Influence | Project/org-wide (horizontal) | Team/org-wide (vertical) |
| Compensation Philosophy | Parity with managers of equal level; market-aligned | Parity with ICs; role complexity and span of control |
| Promotion Artifacts | Portfolio, scorecard, peer/manager feedback | Team outcomes, 360s, leadership case studies |
| Transition Flexibility | Possible at gateway levels; must meet behavioral/leadership bar | Possible at gateway levels; must meet technical/subject matter bar |
Key Metrics and KPIs to Monitor
Effective dual track systems are grounded in data. Key metrics include:
- Time-to-fill and time-to-hire for both IC and Manager roles (benchmarked by region and function)
- Quality-of-hire — measured via 90-day retention, performance ratings, and hiring manager satisfaction (see Gallup)
- Internal mobility rate — how many promotions/moves occur cross-track vs. within-track
- Offer acceptance rate — especially for lateral moves between tracks
- Promotion cycle time — average time from eligibility to decision
- Diversity and bias monitoring — representation by gender, ethnicity, and background at each level (aligned with EEOC best practices)
These metrics should be reviewed at least quarterly in global organizations, and used to iterate on criteria and process.
Mini-Case: Dual Track in Practice
Scenario: A multinational fintech company in the E.U. noticed that high-performing data scientists were stagnating, as managerial progression was the only promoted path. Turnover among senior ICs rose to 18%—well above industry norms.
Action: The company implemented a dual track framework, mapping IC and Manager levels, introducing a scorecard-based promotion process, and aligning compensation bands. They established “Principal Data Scientist” as a peer to “Engineering Manager.”
Outcomes: Within 18 months, 90-day retention for senior ICs improved by 24%, and internal mobility increased by 33%. Peer feedback showed higher engagement scores and a more diverse leadership pipeline.
Trade-offs: The rollout required significant manager training, calibration of legacy titles, and ongoing communication to clarify that IC advancement was not a “second-class” option. Some managers initially resisted parity, fearing loss of status—these concerns eased as business impact became clear.
Risks, Trade-offs, and Adaptation
Implementing dual track frameworks is not without challenges. Common risks include:
- Role confusion — blurred boundaries between senior ICs and first-line managers
- Pay compression — perception issues if ICs out-earn some managers
- Inconsistent criteria — especially in global or multi-division organizations
- Bias in promotion — if process is not structured and transparent
Trade-offs must be managed between consistency and local adaptation. For example, some LatAm and MENA markets have flatter structures and may require fewer levels or more flexible criteria. In the U.S., legal risk around pay equity and anti-discrimination is higher, so regular audits are essential. In the E.U., works councils may require co-determination on level definitions and pay bands.
“Our dual ladder model initially created confusion, but over time, it became a magnet for top talent who value depth over breadth. Key was making both tracks visible, respected, and rewarded.”
— HR Director, Global SaaS Company (source: SHRM case library)
Checklist: Launching a Dual Track Progression Framework
- Define target levels for both IC and Manager tracks (with sample titles and competencies)
- Map compensation bands for parity and market alignment
- Develop scorecards and structured interview guides
- Establish a transparent, bias-mitigated promotion process (panel, packets, calibration)
- Communicate expectations, criteria, and mobility options to all employees
- Monitor KPIs quarterly; refine based on data and feedback
- Train managers in giving feedback and supporting cross-track development
- Adapt for regional legal, cultural, and business context (consult with local HR as needed)
Final Thoughts: Building a Living System
Well-designed dual track progression frameworks are not static. They require ongoing iteration, real listening, and commitment from leadership. The goal is to enable every high performer to see a future—whether that future is as a domain expert or a people leader. The best organizations don’t force choices, but create systems where both tracks are celebrated, compensated, and supported equally. This is not just an HR initiative—it’s a lever for innovation, engagement, and long-term business health.