Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Diagnose Performance Management Gaps
2–3 weeks (2 hrs/day)
Interview at least three people in the target team — a manager, a contributor, and an HR or operations stakeholder — and review any existing performance documentation. Produce a gap analysis that distinguishes between symptoms and root causes, and frames what a better framework must achieve.
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
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
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
Design the Framework Components
2–3 weeks (2 hrs/day)
Design a performance framework covering four components: a goal-setting methodology, a review cadence, a rating or feedback mechanism, and a calibration process. For each component, document the design choice and explicitly link it to the root causes identified in your diagnosis. Produce a worked example showing how one hypothetical employee moves through the full annual cycle.
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
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
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
Pilot Review with an HR or OD Practitioner
1 week (2 hrs/day)
Share the complete framework and worked example with an HR professional or organisational development practitioner with at least five years of experience. The practitioner challenges the design assumptions, the feasibility of the calibration process, and whether the worked example is realistic. Revise at least one component based on their specific feedback.
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
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
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
Part of