Find AI Prompts
Home›Human Resources›Promotion Assessments
Human ResourcesPerformance & Development

AI Prompts for Promotion Assessments

Promotion decisions are among the most consequential and most scrutinized an organization makes. They are defensible when the criteria for the next level are defined in advance, when the case is built from evidence of sustained performance at that level, and when a committee assesses every case against the same standard. They are not defensible when they reward tenure, visibility, advocacy skill or a manager's persuasiveness.

These prompts define the criteria, assemble the case, and prepare the committee. Under the guardrail below: the committee and the accountable leaders decide; the model organizes evidence and drafts. Nothing here scores people on anything other than job-related criteria.

Before you use these

Have these ready to replace the highlighted [variables]:

These prompts structure evidence and draft documents for performance, promotion and talent decisions. They do not make those decisions. Every rating, ranking or recommendation the model produces is a draft for a manager and HR to review against consistent, job-related criteria; nothing here may score people on protected characteristics or their proxies, and decisions with employment consequences follow your policy and local law.

The prompts

1. Define promotion criteria and evidence standards

Best forCriteria for a level that say what must be demonstrated, for how long, and what evidence counts.
Inputs needed
  • Next level's indicators
  • Policy
  • Past cases
How to use itGive the framework level and the policy. The model writes the criteria as evidence standards, the sustained-performance rule, and the case template — plus what does not count.
Expected outputCriteria per competency with evidence standards, sustained-performance period, case template, what does not count, and the eligibility rules.
Act as a talent management lead defining promotion criteria from [level] to [next level] in [role family].

Next-level indicators: [from the framework]
Policy: [eligibility, cycle, decision-makers — to verify]
Past cases: [what strong and weak cases looked like]

1. Criteria per competency: what must be demonstrated at the next level, the evidence that counts (outcomes, artifacts, decisions, feedback from named stakeholders), and the evidence that does not (tenure, hours, visibility, self-description, a manager's opinion without examples).
2. Sustained performance: the period over which next-level performance must be shown, and why.
3. Case template: sections, length limits, evidence citations, the employee's own statement, the manager's assessment, stakeholder input.
4. Consistency rules: the same standard for all candidates for this level; how cases from different teams are compared; how gaps in evidence are treated (the case is incomplete, not the person deficient).
5. Bias safeguards: evidence standards that do not favor visibility, availability, or particular working patterns; how remote, part-time or recently returned employees' evidence is assessed fairly.
6. Communication: how criteria are published so employees can build evidence deliberately.

Criteria must be applicable from evidence a committee can read. Adjectives are not criteria.

2. Assemble a promotion case from evidence

Best forA case that puts evidence against each criterion and is honest about gaps.
Inputs needed
  • Criteria and evidence standards
  • Candidate's evidence
  • Stakeholder feedback
How to use itPaste the evidence. The model organizes it against each criterion, cites it, identifies gaps, and drafts the manager's assessment — for the manager to confirm. It does not decide.
Expected outputCase draft: evidence per criterion with citations and dates, sustained-performance check, gaps stated plainly, manager's assessment draft, and the questions the committee will ask.
You are assembling a promotion case for [candidate, current level → next level] for the manager to review and confirm.

Criteria and evidence standards: [paste]
Evidence available: [outcomes, artifacts, decisions, feedback with sources and dates, over the period]

1. Per criterion: the evidence that meets the standard (cited, dated, with the stakeholder where relevant); the evidence that is adjacent but does not meet it; and the gap, stated plainly.
2. Sustained performance: whether next-level evidence spans the required period, or clusters recently.
3. Case narrative (under 400 words): what the candidate has done at the next level, in outcomes and impact — factual, no advocacy language.
4. Manager's assessment draft: readiness against each criterion; where the manager's view is not yet supported by evidence, say so.
5. Questions the committee is likely to ask, and where the answers are in the case.
6. Excluded: anything in the material that is not job-related evidence (personal circumstances, effort described without outcome, comparisons to other people).

This is a draft for the manager. It does not recommend a decision; the committee decides against the standard.

3. Run the promotion committee consistently

Best forA committee session that assesses every case against the same standard with a clear record.
Inputs needed
  • Cases for the cycle
  • Criteria
  • Committee membership and rules
How to use itPaste the cases (or summaries). The model prepares the session: evidence check per case, the consistency comparisons across cases, the questions, and the decision record — surfacing questions, not verdicts.
Expected outputSession agenda, per-case evidence completeness and the criteria in question, cross-case consistency checks, the decision record format, and the feedback to candidates.
Act as an HR business partner preparing the promotion committee for [level, role family, cycle].

Cases: [per candidate: evidence per criterion, gaps, manager assessment]
Criteria: [paste]
Committee: [members, decision rule, conflict-of-interest rule]

1. Per case: evidence completeness per criterion; the criteria where the evidence is strong, thin or absent; the specific questions for the committee to resolve — not a recommendation.
2. Cross-case consistency: where similar evidence appears in different cases, check that it is assessed the same way; where the standard seems to be applied more strictly to some cases, flag it.
3. Group check: whether outcomes across the cycle differ by team, location, working pattern or other group for similar evidence — raised as a consistency and fairness matter for the committee.
4. Process rules for the session: cases assessed against the standard, not against each other; evidence before opinion; conflicts declared; the decision rule applied as written.
5. Decision record per case: decision, the criteria met and not met with the evidence, the reasoning, dissent, and the development feedback for the candidate whether promoted or not.
6. Feedback to candidates: specific, evidence-based, and forward-looking for those not promoted; delivered by the manager with HR support.

The committee decides. Present the questions and the evidence; do not rank the candidates.

Worked example

A promotion case that read strongly — a manager's two-page endorsement, three senior advocates — but, laid against the criteria, had next-level evidence for two of five competencies, both from the last quarter. The committee deferred with specific development actions and a named stretch assignment; the same case with sustained evidence was approved the following cycle. The candidate later said the deferral feedback was the most useful they had received. Illustrative only.

Related prompts

Logical next step

After this, most HR teams move on to Competency Frameworks.

Get the free HR & Recruiting AI Starter Kit → Nine of these prompts as an intake → assess → offer hiring workflow with an intake worksheet, delivered by email. See what's inside

All Human Resources prompts · Search the full library