> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.elevate.help/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Performance Grades

> How final grades are derived from scorecards and the Talent Bar—A-player, above bar, and underperformer—with example interpretation.

Performance grades are the **final outcome** of the [Framework](/framework/overview): they summarise how someone performed relative to the [Talent Bar](/framework/talent-bar) across [Skills](/framework/performance-dimensions#skills), [Delivery](/framework/performance-dimensions#delivery), and [Behaviors](/framework/performance-dimensions#behaviors).

## Grade logic (conceptual)

Grades are derived from [Scorecards](/framework/scorecards) compared to the Talent Bar. The system distinguishes:

| Grade                                                                                   | Meaning                                               |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- |
| **[A-player](/philosophy/high-performance-model#a-players-15-25)**                      | Significantly exceeds expectations in most dimensions |
| **[Above bar](/philosophy/high-performance-model#above-bar--average-performers-65-85)** | Meets expectations or slightly exceeds in some areas  |
| **[Underperformer](/philosophy/high-performance-model#underperformers-0-10)**           | 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.

**Key point**\
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

1. [Managers](/process/roles-and-ownership#managers) complete [scorecards](/framework/scorecards) (Step 1 of the [Quarterly Cycle](/process/quarterly-cycle)).
2. [Performance Team](/process/roles-and-ownership#performance-team) calculates grades from scorecards vs. [Talent Bar](/framework/talent-bar) and runs [Calibration](/process/calibration) (Step 2).
3. [Leadership](/process/roles-and-ownership#ceo--top-management) reviews and approves final grades.
4. [Managers](/process/roles-and-ownership#managers) deliver feedback and [outcomes](/process/outcomes) to employees (Step 3).

Grades directly influence [Outcomes](/process/outcomes): promotions, salary, equity, PIPs, and exits.