Design a Performance Management Framework

Proof required

Submit a diagnosis report (two to three pages) covering: summary of interview findings (at least three interviews cited), gap analysis contrasting the current state against stated team goals, root cause identification for the top two to three gaps, and a framing statement for what the framework must achieve.

What gets checked

• At least three interviews are documented with role, date, and specific quotes or observations — not a generic summary
• The diagnosis distinguishes between symptoms (e.g. 'reviews feel rushed') and root causes (e.g. 'no calibration step creates inconsistent standards')
• Evidence from multiple organizational levels is present — not just the manager's perspective

Common mistakes

• Skipping the interview phase and designing from assumptions about what the team needs
• Listing symptoms as root causes — the framework will then address the wrong problem

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask to see at least one interview transcript or detailed note — summaries alone are insufficient
• Challenge the root cause: ask 'why does that gap exist?' at least twice to test whether the analysis goes deep enough
• Check that the framing statement is specific enough to rule out framework options that would not address the diagnosed causes
• Ask whether any interview respondent pushed back on the diagnosis and how it was handled

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit a written framework document covering all four components with design rationale; and a worked example showing a single hypothetical employee's full annual cycle — goal-setting, mid-year check-in, year-end review, calibration — with specific realistic details at each step.

What gets checked

• Every design choice for each component is explicitly traced to a specific root cause in the diagnosis document
• The worked example is specific and realistic — a named role, concrete goals, a realistic performance scenario — not an abstract placeholder
• The rating or feedback mechanism addresses the calibration root cause if one was identified in the diagnosis

Common mistakes

• Designing a framework that mirrors a well-known model (OKRs, 360 feedback) without connecting the design choices to the specific diagnosed gaps
• A worked example that is generic ('Employee A sets three goals and receives feedback') rather than demonstrating how the framework handles its own design tension points

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• For each of the four components, ask: 'how does this design address root cause X from your diagnosis?'
• Walk through the worked example together and identify one plausible real-world edge case — does the framework handle it?
• Challenge the calibration process: ask what prevents a manager from consistently rating their team higher than peers
• Ask whether the framework is feasible for a team of the stated size without full-time HR support

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: the final framework document; a written record of the review session including the reviewer's credentials, at least three specific challenges raised, and your written response to each; and a revision log showing what changed in the framework and why.

What gets checked

• Reviewer has ≥5 years of hands-on HR or OD experience — not a peer reviewer or general business mentor
• At least three distinct substantive challenges are documented — not general encouragement
• At least one revision was made to the framework components or worked example with explicit rationale

Common mistakes

• Sharing only the final clean document and not the diagnosis — the practitioner cannot assess whether the design solves the right problem without seeing the diagnosis
• Selecting a reviewer who manages a team but has no HR design experience — management experience and framework design expertise are different

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm the reviewer's role and years of HR or OD experience before treating the session as valid
• Ask: what was the practitioner's most uncomfortable challenge, and did the candidate hold their position or revise it?
• Check the revision: does it improve the framework or just soften the language in response to pushback?
• Ask whether the practitioner confirmed the worked example was realistic for the stated team size and context

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.