It was time for Sarah’s own performance review meeting. She remembered, with horror, the appraisal interview in her previous organisation, where she was faced with a completed set of subjective ratings, a fixed 30 minute slot and an old-style manager who opened up the session with the comment ‘we haven’t a lot of time so I hope we don’t have the same old irrelevant arguments as we’ve had in the past’. She co-operated by withdrawing from real discussions, accepting faint praise where it was due, closing her mind to the unjust criticism and identifying her own agenda for self-improvement, part of which was to move to a new company!

The meeting had been prefaced by a series of informal discussions during the year where progress on a number of projects was reviewed and developmental issues addressed openly. So Sarah did not expect too many surprises from the review meeting nor, as it turned out, did she receive any. By agreement, the meeting with Scott took place on a Saturday morning at a local training centre they had often used, so there could be no interruptions or time restraints. Sarah had completed her self-assessment the week before and given it to David. The scheme combined a set of objectives with a focus on key competencies attached to her role and she believed that she had achieved five of the six objectives and had made progress in improving her skills and competencies with one or two exceptions.

The meeting opened with a discussion of the overall progress of the department over the year – its influence and a review of its major initiatives. Scott gave Sarah a report of the department’s ratings, based on a recent internal management service survey, which indicated satisfaction in most areas, except in achieving results on time. He indicated his pleasure at the success in the recruitment and selection areas, where the teams that Sarah had helped recruit appeared to be gelling well and bringing in excellent results. The introduction of assessment centres had been seen as especially successful by the managers participating. In terms of competencies, her communications skills were highly praised, both in writing reports, briefing documents and policies and also in giving presentations (David reported that her talk to senior management on the assessment centre outcomes had been highly commended). She was a valued member of the team and showed strong co-operation and innovative abilities.

Scott then raised the issue of completing projects on time, mentioning a degree of surprise and disappointment over the overrun of the project to revise the performance management system itself. Sarah was herself disappointed at this, explaining that much of this was due to the dispute in the managers’ focus group between the majority who wanted to extend the 360 degree feedback and a vociferous minority who were strongly against such a move. As co-ordinator of the project, she did not feel able to over-rule the minority so a further set of meetings were arranged over several weeks where progress was achieved, although it was slow. She realised that this did not obtain the right result.

Scott then led into a detailed discussion on her influencing skills, getting her to talk frankly about how she dealt with opposition and dispute. She agreed that she did not find it easy to handle, taking some of it as a personal criticism and leading to a tendency to retreat into submission. Scott presented the view that some managers considered her not sufficiently tough or decisive enough on occasions. It was agreed that she needed to develop her skills in this area, and she was asked to talk to training colleagues about courses in this area. He would do the same, with a view to her attending an external course within the next 3 months plus a follow-up after a further 6 months. It was also fixed for her to spend a couple of days in the next few months work shadowing a consultant (an ex-colleague of Scott) to observe the skills exercised in this area.

They went on to spend time agreeing her overall ratings and then Scott listened to her feedback on their own relationship. Sarah had not felt comfortable in this part of the session in the previous year but she had gained some confidence in the relaxed atmosphere and raised two issues which had annoyed her, namely the lack of inclusion in an crucial departmental strategy meeting and the continuous urgency attached to certain issues by Scott. The first was settled by explanation of the special circumstances of which she was unaware and the second was integrated with the issue of decisiveness discussed earlier. The review ended with a planning session for the next 12 months, a discussion of the possible future long-term promotion plans and the likely salary implications of this review. Scott made it clear that her performance and level of commitment was very strong and he was gratified to see the good progress. But future progress up the HR ladder did require development in the areas discussed.

Sarah left the meeting feeling pleased, if rather drained by the intense, yet relaxed discussions. She realised that her good work was recognised, that she was making progress and was content that the criticisms of her were made in a constructive, positive and supportive way.