Grade logic (conceptual)
Grades are derived from Scorecards compared to the Talent Bar. The system distinguishes:| Grade | Meaning |
|---|---|
| A-player | Significantly exceeds expectations in most dimensions |
| Above bar | Meets expectations or slightly exceeds in some areas |
| Underperformer | Below expectations in at least one meaningful area |
Example interpretation
Conceptual examples:- Alice — Exceeds expectations across almost all dimensions → A-player. Typical outcomes: accelerate promotion, meaningful comp increase, equity, larger scope.
- Chris — Roughly in line with expectations across dimensions → Above bar. Typical outcomes: development focus, coaching, targeted growth plans.
- Mary — Meets the bar in most areas but fails one dimension (e.g. a critical behavior or a core skill) → Underperformer. Typical outcomes: PIP, role/scope change, or exit if the gap cannot be closed.
A single critical gap can be enough to justify an underperformer classification, even if other areas are acceptable. The system does not average out serious shortfalls in one dimension.
How grades are produced
- Managers complete scorecards (Step 1 of the Quarterly Cycle).
- Performance Team calculates grades from scorecards vs. Talent Bar and runs Calibration (Step 2).
- Leadership reviews and approves final grades.
- Managers deliver feedback and outcomes to employees (Step 3).