People who work at these places - how rigidly are these things stuck to? Because I've worked in places with very detailed job ladders only to see them basically ignored and replaced with gut feelings and popularity contests. Job ladder is a nice bit of PR but it's better as a cornerstone of culture.
Done well these ladders can provide a somewhat objective backbone to justifying performance reviews and promotions across a large org. That said, ladders are generalizations by definition and cannot tell the story of an individual. It gets even more complex when you realize that the highest functioning teams will have differing and complementary personality traits and approaches.
While everyone wants objectivity and fairness, the functioning of a creative team exploring new problem spaces is squishy, and relative contribution is subjective. Attempting to force objectivity through rigid adherence to a fine-grained rubric is dehumanizing and will likely lead to box-ticking behavior and losing sight of the actual business goals. What you want is an engaged manager who is tuned into the team, hearing all the feedback, and able to synthesize that into a fair performance evaluation. If you don't have that level of trust with your manager then no amount of documentation and formality around the process will save you.
1. Not every case but often the things that makes a person "popular" are also actually really adding value for the team: Happy, optimistic attitude, helpfulness, attentiveness, good listener, good mentor. Promotions are given to a whole person not just for their coding contributions.
2. Everybody is on a unique path and as a manager I would never expect anybody to follow a develoment path exactly as laid out on a career ladder. (See: the map is not the territory)
3. Managers giving promotions are more likely to be biased by their own feelings (often: appreciation), but in many cases beyond a certain level a promotion requires a committee approval where a ladder is probably applied more objectively (who knows if this adds value or not!)
Good points! I'm also a manager and recognize more than a bit of myself in your answers. I wasn't passing blame on my past employers. As a reasonably senior engineering leader I was part of the machine.
In response to your points:
1. Definitely. But shouldn't your job ladder also cover those things? I don't want to promote anyone up to a high level if they can't mentor others, for example.
2. Definitely. Shouldn't a decent job ladder allow people to excel in certain areas while maintaining some sort of minimum acceptable level in others?
3. Definitely. But that's the problem I've experienced. A lack of a committee means that it's basically a matter of running it up the ladder and then your ability to be promoted hinges on your manager's ability to work the system.
I would also just add that most promotion documents will tie in what's laid out on the career ladder. At larger companies promo documents have a template and often directly ask for evaluations on whatever's in the career ladder rubric.
