Why we use checklists
Managers are inconsistent when asked to “rate performance” in the abstract. Checklists force consistency by prompting evaluation against observable criteria. This:- Reduces bias — Same prompts for everyone; less subjective interpretation
- Improves calibration quality — Structured data is easier to check and compare
- Creates defensible outcomes — Decisions can be traced to evidence and criteria
- Improves adoption — Less ambiguity; managers know what to assess
What checklists look like
Each performance dimension is evaluated using checklists of observable statements. Your organisation defines the exact wording; People Protocol provides the structure.Delivery (illustrative)
- Delivered agreed outcomes within the quarter
- Work was completed with minimal rework required
- Dependencies were managed proactively
- Execution quality met expected standards
Skills (illustrative)
- Demonstrates role-required technical or functional competence
- Handles complexity appropriate to seniority
- Makes sound decisions with limited oversight
- Improves capability over time
Behaviors (illustrative)
- Communicates clearly and early
- Demonstrates ownership and accountability
- Collaborates effectively across stakeholders
- Raises risks early and proposes solutions
How they are used in the platform
- Connectors and AI surface evidence that supports checklist evaluation
- Scorecards combine Delivery, Skills, and Behaviors checklists into one review
- Results are compared to the Talent Bar to derive grades and outcomes