Our organization is in the midst of mid-year reviews. First off - the "Performance Reviews" HoF podcasts are awesome, and equally as applicable to a mid-year review as an end-of year review - thank you!
So, my ask: Senior management distributed a nine-box grid labelled "Performance Overtime and Potential" to all managers. The only guidance was a vieled implication that each direct should be in a different box. The boxes are labelled:
2. High Potential
3. Over Achiever
4. Core Player
5. Strong Performer
6. Solid Performer
7. Mismatched Performer
8. Inconsistent Player
9. At Risk
With further digging, I discovered the intent was to identify 1/2/3's as potentially having larger aspirations to become an executive. It was left to the manager whether or not to share the rating with the direct. Since it would seem that career-impacting preconceptions are being formed with this information, I choose to share it with my directs. However, the bullets describing many of the ratings seem to run contrary to the label. For example:
- Delivers performance as expected in the current role.
- Keeps current skills up-to-date, but demonstrates little effort to apply lessons learned to increase performance.
- Does not effectively adapt to new situations.
- Has limited professional interests and does not invest in personal development.
My challenge is not defending a placement - I have documented O3's and feedback. My challenge is that the mix of attributes make placement inappropriate for some of my directs.
I'd appreciate the communities thoughts.