A growth-stage life science company had scaled revenue well past its startup phase while its hiring, review, and development practices stayed behind, and several managers were leading people for the first time with no shared definition of the job. HR recommended written competencies and leadership agreed. We built the model from interviews, an all-employee survey, and a document review, which produced ten capabilities, a leveling system based on the work each role requires, and tools that carry one standard into hiring, reviews, development, and promotion. For CHROs at high-growth health and life science companies the lesson is about timing: build the structure when the first wave of first-time managers arrives, before early habits become precedent.

Picture a strong individual contributor promoted into managing a team, with no written description of what the job asks and no common language for setting expectations or giving hard feedback. Several managers at this company were in that position at once, and that is where the work began.

What listening turned up

We started with interviews of leaders and key individual contributors from different departments, an all-employee survey, and a review of earlier internal materials such as performance review forms and the org chart. The three sources pointed in the same direction.

There was plenty worth protecting: people described a collaborative culture with very little politics, and a handful of experienced leaders were already showing what stronger practice looks like. The gaps appeared where you would expect them in a company moving this fast. Managers promoted for strong individual work had no common way to set expectations, coach, or give difficult feedback; decisions were escalated or delayed, new work arrived without anything coming off, and titles did not reliably reflect the scope of a role. Teams held themselves accountable reasonably well, though follow-through across functions was another matter.

Letting the evidence pick the capabilities

We did not begin with a template. A capability stayed on the list only when it had support from what employees said mattered, what we heard in interviews, and where the business was heading.

Two of them earned their place on a different mix of evidence. One forward-looking capability scored lower in the survey, yet the interviews suggested it would soon be a competitive requirement, so we kept it, and coaching and feedback was added on the strength of HR’s own observations and interview themes that included leaders avoiding hard conversations. A survey by itself would have dropped both, because employees rate what they can see today and a company in transition needs a model that also describes what comes next.

From there we compared how important each capability was with how consistently leaders said it showed up in practice, and a small group had the largest gaps and the clearest case for investment. Communication carried the highest importance rating on the entire list and sat among them, so starting there took very little defending.

Fewer level groups than levels

The company also needed a shared way to talk about levels, so we built a leveling framework defined by autonomy, complexity, expertise and judgment, influence, and impact. It describes the work a role requires and not the person who holds it, which means nobody moves up on tenure or excellence alone; a higher level exists when the work itself calls for broader scope.

Competency behaviors are written for a few level groups rather than for every individual level, and that was a deliberate call. Separate versions of every competency at every level add volume without adding clarity, and managers end up hunting for matching wording and arguing for a rating. A few sets are enough to capture the real shifts, such as the point where someone starts leading a team, then other leaders, then the direction of the organization.

Managers also received a short guide for keeping three judgments apart: what the role requires, how consistently the person shows the competencies in that role, and whether the person is ready for a different one. Picture an excellent performer who has never led cross-functional work. That person can earn the top rating in the current job and still have no evidence of readiness for the next, because the evidence comes from doing the broader work. In our experience, companies that treat those as one question end up promoting people into jobs unlike the ones they excelled at.

One model doing several jobs

The same competencies and levels feed hiring, performance reviews, development planning, promotion, and succession, and we built the supporting pieces around four needs: shared expectations, practical tools, learning, and accountability. Managers received a leadership field guide that runs from hiring through performance management and decision making, individuals received a development toolkit, and people moving between levels received learning paths for each transition, with the topics tied to the largest gaps placed first.

We were just as direct about what a competency model cannot do. Unclear decision rights, structural capacity problems, and compensation and titling sit next to the model rather than inside it, so we named them separately; otherwise people would expect a framework to solve problems that belong to the organization’s structure.

Why the first wave of managers is the trigger

Our position is that the arrival of the first wave of first-time managers is the right moment for this work, and the reason is precedent. Every promotion made without a written standard, and every review written without shared language, becomes a decision someone may later have to explain or reverse. In our experience, companies in expertise-driven fields often promote for technical excellence, which is exactly where performance in the current role and readiness for a broader one have to be judged separately.

None of this means a startup of twenty people needs a full leveling framework. The signal is managers who have never managed, and headcount or a funding round matters far less. Keeping the model short enough to use is what lets a company at this stage adopt it without slowing down.

You may be at that point if:

• Several managers lead people for the first time and nobody has written down what good looks like.
• Your first calibration or promotion cycle is coming and you expect to be asked to explain the decisions.
• Titles and levels no longer reliably signal the scope of a role.
• Leaders escalate decisions or avoid giving difficult feedback.
• A training budget or learning library is on the table before you can say which capabilities need building.

If two or three of those sound familiar, the decision in front of you is about timing, and what we saw here suggests sooner is easier.

Are your first-time managers working from a standard nobody has written down? Let’s talk through what a competency model and talent structure would look like at your stage of growth, and visit our Leadership Competency Development solutions page for additional insight.

Our FAQ page covers common questions on talent systems, leadership development, and engagement data.