1Step 1
Set the purpose early
Frame the meeting as a professional growth conversation from the start. People engage better when they know this is about progress, not point-scoring.
Guidance Suite
Current route:Appraiser
Move between role journeys, reference tools, and source materials without losing your place.
Routes
Maps & Pathways Guidance
Appraiser Journey
Lead the conversation without turning it into a confrontation
This route helps you run a balanced, evidence-led conversation that surfaces the gap, widens perspective, and keeps the focus on forward movement.
4
Common gap patterns
4
Feedback tools
1
Shared goal: movement
Conversation Flow
Lead the map as a conversation, not a verdict
The strongest meetings stay clear, adult-to-adult, and focused on movement rather than correction.
2Step 2
Explore before you correct
Use questions first. Understand why the appraisee placed themselves where they did before introducing your own examples and judgement.
3Step 3
Convert insight into action
Once the difference is clearer, agree the marker, the support, and the next step that will move the person forward.
Facilitating Placement
Use the map to surface judgement, not override it
The deck treats marker placement as structured professional judgement. Your job is to make that judgement visible, test it fairly, and turn it into movement without making the meeting feel like a correction exercise.
Sequence
Let the appraisee's first placement do some work
Their starting marker tells you how they currently read themselves. Resist the urge to correct too early and use that first placement to surface confidence, blind spots, and expectations.
Calibration
Keep the benchmark tied to the role
Anchor the discussion in the expectations of this role, at this level, not in a vague sense of whether the person feels strong overall.
Examples
Use example comments lightly
The example phrases in the deck are guidance only. Use them to sharpen interpretation, not as scripts or definitions that shut the conversation down.
Gap
Discuss the gap, not just the dot
The difference between markers is where the useful conversation lives. Explore why it exists before you rush to move either marker.
Consistency
Be explicit about how context is being judged
If your organisation uses an absolute or contextualised approach to performance, say so clearly and apply it consistently across staff.
Movement
Finish with a realistic destination
The goal marker should describe the next credible position and the journey towards it, not a distant aspiration with no bridge back to current practice.
Absolute
Consistency through a fixed benchmark
With an absolute approach, performance is judged against the stated expectation without adjusting the placement for how difficult the context was.
- Useful when the trust wants strong comparability across similar roles.
- Requires clear examples of what each standard looks like.
- Can flatten nuance if circumstances differ sharply.
Contextualised
Consistency through calibrated judgement
With a contextualised approach, the same output may be read differently if one person was working under substantially harder conditions than another.
- Useful when context is considered part of fair judgement.
- Requires stronger moderation so similar cases are treated similarly.
- Should add nuance without becoming an excuse for weak performance.
Avoid false precision
The example comments in the source pack are there to support interpretation of the map, not to become scripts or legal definitions. Consistency matters more than pretending that placement is exact to the millimetre.
Scenario Guidance
Match your approach to the gap in view
Different gaps need different handling. The point is not to memorise scripts, but to recognise what kind of conversation you are really in.
Confidence
When someone marks themselves too low
This often points to low confidence, unrealistic standards, or a way of steering the conversation away from harder issues.
- Ask what stronger performance would have looked like instead of rushing to reassure.
- Bring examples of what is working and what still needs attention.
- Keep confidence and performance in the same conversation.
Calibration
When someone marks performance too high
This is often a mix of blind spots, partial understanding of the role, or a weak benchmark for what stronger performance really looks like.
- Ask for evidence first, then probe what criteria may have been missed.
- Acknowledge genuine strengths before challenging the placement.
- Use examples to show what the higher standard would actually look like.
Impact
When someone marks standards and conduct too high
These conversations usually hinge on intent versus impact and on whether the person can recognise how others experienced their behaviour.
- Ask how others may have felt, not only what the person intended.
- Name the gap between a positive intention and an unhelpful effect.
- Finish with what needs to change next time.
Blind Spots
When the gap is large on both dimensions
If the gap is significant, you may need to address expectations, self-awareness, or both, and bring in more support than the conversation alone can provide.
- Acknowledge how the gap may feel before examining why it exists.
- Use direct examples and ask what might explain the difference in view.
- Bring in 360 feedback or Johari-style work if blind spots need surfacing.
Question Stems
Use sample prompts as prompts, not scripts
The deck includes example questions for the common gap patterns. They are there to keep the conversation exploratory, evidence-led, and adult-to-adult rather than to give you lines to recite.
ConfidenceQuestion stems when someone marks themselves too low+
Use prompts that surface unrealistic standards, reassurance-seeking, or low confidence without rushing to comfort too early.
- "What would placing yourself where I have placed you have looked like over this period?"
- "What more would you have needed to do to feel confident placing yourself higher?"
- "Which parts of this feel like confidence, and which parts are about the actual standard?"
- "What steps would help raise both your confidence and your performance here?"
The aim is to keep confidence and accountability in the same conversation rather than letting one displace the other.
CalibrationQuestion stems when performance is marked too high+
Stay exploratory first, then use questions to widen their benchmark and expose the criteria or inconsistencies they may have missed.
- "Can you walk me through the examples that led you to that placement?"
- "Which parts of the role expectations might you not have considered yet?"
- "Where has performance been less consistent than this marker suggests?"
- "What do you think explains the gap between how you see it and how I do?"
Affirm genuine strengths before you challenge the placement, so the conversation stays adult-to-adult rather than corrective.
ImpactQuestion stems when standards and conduct are marked too high+
These prompts help move the conversation from self-image and intent into consistency, impact, and how others may have experienced the behaviour.
- "Can you share examples where you feel you demonstrated this strongly?"
- "Do you think you showed that consistently across the period?"
- "How do you think other people may have experienced that behaviour?"
- "What do you need to do differently next time to avoid that impact?"
Intent matters, but the conversation usually becomes more useful when the person can also see the effect their behaviour had on others.
Blind SpotsQuestion stems when the gap is large on both axes+
A larger mismatch usually needs a more direct exploration of expectations, self-awareness, and the causes underneath the gap.
- "Is this gap a surprise to you, and how are you feeling about it?"
- "Do you think this is mainly about expectations, self-awareness, or a bit of both?"
- "What was your intention in the examples we have discussed, and what impact did they have?"
- "Would wider feedback such as 360 or Johari-style work help us surface what is driving this gap?"
When the gap stays stubborn, the deck suggests bringing in wider feedback tools rather than expecting one meeting to solve every blind spot.
Feedback Models
Choose the model that best fits the conversation
Use the lightest structure that helps. A good model should sharpen the conversation, not make it feel rehearsed.
Listening
Listening Staircase
Use it to check whether you are listening for understanding or simply waiting to respond.
Feedback
SBII
Use it when behaviour needs to be described clearly without letting the conversation become accusatory.
Feedback
CEDAR
Use it when you need a broader conversation that moves from context and examples into action and review.
Change
Listening for Change
Use it when the person feels heard, and the next challenge is turning that insight into real movement.
Platform Use
Use the wider system when the conversation needs more support
The map is the centre of the meeting, but it is not the whole toolkit. Use the wider system to lower friction, make progress visible, and bring in extra structure only when the conversation needs it.
Set the reveal model deliberately+
Decide whether markers should be placed before the meeting and revealed together, or whether placement should happen live. Different trusts choose differently for good reasons, so be clear about the local norm.
Use the meeting mode that lowers friction+
The same workflow supports remote meetings, shared in-room meetings, and single-device conversations. Choose the mode that helps the discussion rather than the one that looks most sophisticated.
Use previous placements and role splits well+
Switch on previous markers when progress over time matters. If the person has two substantial roles or two appraisers, use those options to keep the conversation precise rather than trying to compress everything into one view.
Use notes and configured fields proportionately+
Notes, headings, required fields, uploads, and sliders can all be configured. Keep the structure light enough to support the meeting rather than turning it back into bureaucracy.
Use wider tools when the conversation is stuck+
If the same blind spot keeps reappearing, bring in a wider feedback tool. 360 feedback and reflective-window work can often surface what one meeting cannot.