The colleague narrative
Colleagues prepare an account of achievements, challenges and development priorities before managers prepare their own account of the same period. The two documents need not agree. A contribution that exceeded its original target may remain a Meets rating if exceeding that target has subsequently become the expected level of contribution.
The calibration room
Managers bring proposed ratings to a session chaired by People and Finance. The council considers performance, consistency and the number of superior ratings already proposed elsewhere. A manager may describe a colleague as indispensable while agreeing that the colleague should receive the standard rating. The description and the award serve different purposes.
Development expectations
Every review includes an area for growth. A colleague who has completed the previous development plan should identify a new limitation before submitting the next one. Absence of an area for growth may indicate insufficient self-awareness. The plan must be ambitious enough to demonstrate commitment and modest enough to remain within the current role.
After the discussion
The manager explains the final rating without disclosing the allocation discussion. Colleagues may appeal a factual error using the original objective, the revised objective and evidence that the original remained in force. An appeal is acknowledged promptly. Its consideration may extend beyond the deadline for accepting the review. At the 2018 summit, delegates spent an entire afternoon defining exceptional before agreeing that the word should appear less often.
