Matt McNeeney

Let me describe a common, but rarely discussed bias I’ve seen in promotion committees / perf calibration meetings: - Highly talented, very effective PM is being discussed - This PM has recently shown exceptional performance in a specific aspect of PM work (e.g. execution / strategy / analytics / design sense / etc.) - Some committee members not intimately familiar with the PM’s work (but eager to chime in) state emphatically: “Bob is clearly very good at execution. But I am not sure if he’s ready for the next level, because I have doubts about his strategic ability” OR “Alice has amazing design sense and that shows in her recent work. But I am not sure she has demonstrated the analytical ability that is required for a 'Greatly Exceeds Expectations' rating” etc. - As a result, the PM gets a lower rating than they deserve or does not get the promotion they applied for The chief issues here: 1) People chiming in to create a perception of making a contribution in the calibration meeting (often because the “big boss” is present in these meetings) 2) Many middle managers and senior leaders assume that if someone is great at “Strategy” they must not be good at “Execution”. Or that if someone is very “Creative” they must not be good with “Analytics”. Even *if* this is true in general, that does not have to be true when your sample size is one (and that specific sample is an otherwise highly effective PM). 3) This kind of decision-making often disincentivizes people from doing what’s right for the company. Example: Several years ago, I was in a calibration meeting in which a very talented mid-level PM was being discussed. This PM had done an exceptional job with “Execution” over the past 6 months. Everyone agreed on that. But then that PM got dinged because someone chimed in “I am not sure if there is enough here in terms of strategic thinking”. A couple of other folks chimed in with a +1 or comment, until I and another manager had to point out: “well, this PM has been focused on execution because the whole area was a disaster and needed someone to come in and align everyone and then execute on the most important things over the past 6 months - they did work that was absolutely right for the company, so it does not make sense to ding them for not demonstrating a certain ability”. This one ended well (the PM got a very good rating), but it only happened because I and another manager had closely seen this PM’s performance (even though they were not on my team). In too many such meetings, there is a consensus bias, everyone nods, and the committee ends up dinging an otherwise promising PM for doing the *very things* that were right for the company. So, if you are a leader in such meetings, make sure to point out when the committee might be falling prey to this tendency. And lastly, don’t automatically assume that someone who is great at Strategy is bad at Execution. Or that someone who is great at Design must be bad at Analytics. Bring keen observation and proof to the discussion, not hunches and conjecture.