What Is a Career Lattice?

The concept of charting a professional course is undergoing a significant redesign, moving away from rigid, straight lines toward more flexible, interconnected structures. What is commonly referred to as a career lattice represents this shift, providing employees with varied pathways for growth that go beyond simple upward promotion. ^[2][4] Unlike the traditional career ladder, which often suggests a linear, step-by-step climb to the top, the lattice model encourages movement in multiple directions—upward, downward, and most importantly, sideways or diagonally—to accumulate diverse experiences and skills. ^[1][4][5] This structure acknowledges that development isn't always about taking the next rung up; sometimes, gaining proficiency in a parallel function or taking on a slightly lower-level role in a new area provides the necessary foundation for a future, higher-level achievement elsewhere. ^[1][7]

# Ladder Contrast

To truly appreciate the lattice, one must first clearly understand the limitations of its predecessor, the career ladder. The traditional ladder implies a highly defined, single track, usually within a specific department or function. ^[2][7] Progression is measured almost exclusively by title changes that move an individual higher in the organizational hierarchy. ^[4] This model worked well when organizations were more static and roles were clearly segmented, but it often leads to stagnation when employees feel blocked or when their aspirations don't fit the prescribed vertical path. ^[1][9]

When companies strictly adhere to the ladder concept, employees who desire a change of focus—say, moving from marketing analytics into product management—often find themselves having to start over or leave the organization entirely, because the ladder doesn't account for lateral development as a recognized step forward. ^[4] This rigidity can lead to high turnover among talented individuals whose skills might be better suited for a different track, but who are incentivized only by vertical movement. ^[2]

The career lattice deliberately breaks this linear constraint. It visualizes roles as interconnected points on a grid, allowing for movement between different functional areas or levels that are related by transferable skills. ^[1][4][9]

# Core Mechanics

The effectiveness of the career lattice hinges on recognizing the value of movement that does not immediately result in a pay raise or a higher designation. ^[9] This system requires organizations to map out roles in relation to each other based on skill sets, competencies, and organizational needs, rather than just reporting structure. ^[4][9]

# Types of Progression

Movement on the lattice generally falls into three main categories:

1. Vertical Movement: This is the traditional promotion, where an employee moves to a role with greater scope, responsibility, and authority. ^[1] This remains a key part of the lattice but is no longer the only path shown. ^[7]
2. Lateral Movement: This involves shifting to a role at a similar level of responsibility but in a different function or department. ^[1][4] For instance, an employee moving from project coordination in IT to program coordination in Operations could be a lateral move intended to build cross-departmental knowledge. ^[9] These moves are critical for building T-shaped employees—those who have deep expertise in one area and broad knowledge across several others. ^[4]
3. Diagonal Movement: This is perhaps the most nuanced move. It involves shifting to a role that might be slightly up or down in direct hierarchy but brings a person into an entirely new domain critical for future senior roles. ^[1] A senior engineer moving into a short-term technical leadership coaching role, which is technically a step down in direct technical contribution but a step toward management, is an example of diagonal progression.

It is important to recognize that for a lattice to function as a development tool and not just an informal shuffling of staff, the lateral or diagonal move must be intentional and supported by the organization as a prerequisite for a future goal. ^[5][9] If a lateral move is perceived as a demotion or a sign of failure, employees will avoid it, and the lattice reverts to looking suspiciously like a series of disconnected ladders. ^[2]

What is career lattices?

# Organizational Advantages

Adopting a career lattice structure offers tangible benefits to both the individual contributor and the employing organization. ^[4] For the business, the most immediate gain is improved internal mobility. ^[6] When a need arises—perhaps a new product line requires expertise that currently resides in a different silo—the organization can fill that gap by redeploying or upskilling existing talent rather than engaging in a lengthy and costly external search. ^[5] This internal shuffling is often faster and comes with a built-in institutional memory. ^[6]

Furthermore, lattices help organizations build a workforce that is more adaptable and resilient. When employees have experience across different functions, they bring varied perspectives to problem-solving. ^[9] This cross-pollination of ideas helps break down departmental silos that often slow decision-making and innovation. ^[4] When employees see viable, diverse paths ahead, engagement tends to increase, which correlates directly with improved retention rates. ^[2][4] Employees are more likely to stay when they feel the company is invested in their entire professional trajectory, not just their immediate next title. ^[5]

One key analytical point to consider is the relationship between the lattice and organizational agility. In today's rapidly evolving markets, the specific skills needed five years from now may not be fully defined today. A traditional ladder demands rigid foresight into static roles. The lattice, by contrast, promotes the acquisition of adaptable, generalist skills alongside specialized ones, making the entire workforce better prepared for unforeseen structural or technological shifts. It builds organizational muscle memory for adaptation itself.

# Building the Structure

Implementing a career lattice requires more than just drawing some connecting lines on an organizational chart; it necessitates a fundamental shift in how growth is discussed and managed. ^[5][9] This is where many organizations struggle, as it requires significant investment in clear communication and skill assessment. ^[9]

# Defining the Steps

The foundation of any good lattice is a precise understanding of roles and competencies. ^[9] Organizations must move toward detailed competency models for every role involved. ^[4] These models should define the minimum required skills for entry into a role, the expected mastery in that role, and the transferable skills that unlock movement to adjacent roles. ^[9]

For example, if Role A (Specialist) requires Skill Set {X, Y, Z} and Role B (Adjacent Specialist) requires {X, A, B}, the path between them is clear only if the employee can bridge the gap between {Y, Z} and {A, B}. ^[9] This mapping process is crucial and often reveals gaps in organizational understanding about how different jobs truly relate to one another. ^[5]

# Transparency and Support

A lattice design is useless if employees do not know it exists or cannot navigate it effectively. ^[5] Career discussions need to shift from "What is your next promotion?" to "What skills do you need to build to reach your long-term career goals, and what roles will help you gain them?". ^[4][9]

This requires dedicated support mechanisms:

1. Mentorship Networks: Pairing employees looking to make lateral moves with experienced staff in the target function provides essential insight and context that documentation alone cannot provide. ^[9]
2. Skills Gap Analysis: Tools or processes must be in place to objectively assess where an employee currently stands versus where they need to be for the next desired step. ^[9]
3. Visible Pathways: The lattice structure, or at least the approved paths within it, must be accessible and visually clear to all employees, showing recognized routes for development. ^[5]

As a practical tip for HR and L&D professionals establishing a lattice, avoid documenting only the current ideal paths. Instead, create two parallel maps. The first map should detail the existing roles and the known, successful internal transfers that have already occurred (the "Proven Paths"). The second map should be aspirational, detailing the cross-functional competencies the business will need in the next three to five years and sketching out the theoretical lattice connections needed to build those competencies, even if the specific future roles don't exist yet. This proactive mapping ensures the lattice supports future strategy, not just current structure. ^[1]

What is the difference between a career ladder and a career path?

# Employee Perspective

From the employee's point of view, the career lattice represents autonomy and engagement. ^[2] It provides a sense of control over one's professional narrative. ^[8] When an employee feels stuck, the lattice offers them options that feel productive rather than punitive. ^[7] They can choose to deepen their expertise (vertical) or broaden their impact (lateral/diagonal) based on their personal appetite for risk and change. ^[4]

This autonomy often translates directly into higher job satisfaction. An employee who spends two years in a rotational program, gaining exposure to finance, operations, and sales—even if their title hasn't changed significantly—is often far more valuable and engaged than someone who stayed in one role for those two years waiting for a single opening to appear. ^[9] They feel that their time investment is being respected by the organization, even when the investment is made in a less conventional direction. ^[1]

# Navigating Complexity

While the lattice is beneficial, it introduces managerial complexity. Managers must evolve from gatekeepers of vertical advancement to coaches of holistic development. ^[9] They must support an employee moving out of their team for a lateral move, which can sometimes be challenging if the manager is measured solely on their team’s headcount stability or immediate output. ^[2] Compensation and performance management systems must also adapt to fairly evaluate individuals who might have highly varied experience across different functions, rather than relying on simple tenure within a single job family. ^[5]

If the management structure incentivizes hoarding talent or views lateral moves as a loss of resources rather than an investment in the broader company structure, the lattice will fail to gain traction. ^[2] Overcoming this cultural inertia often requires leadership buy-in that clearly mandates and rewards cross-functional development as a core competency for managers themselves. ^[5] The shift requires leaders to look at talent not as siloed resources, but as organizational capital that should be strategically deployed across the entire ecosystem. ^[8]