A colleague’s appraisal score has stayed much the same. Does that mean their development has stalled? Before deciding, look at the work behind it. They may now be handling more difficult tasks, making decisions with less support or applying a skill in an unfamiliar setting.

Those possibilities need evidence. An unchanged score does not prove progress, just as a higher one does not explain what improved. A useful review connects the judgement to examples and checks whether the expectations have changed.

Compare the work as well as the score

Imagine a colleague who previously resolved routine enquiries with a manager nearby. They now handle more complex cases independently and know when to seek help. Their overall assessment remains ‘meeting expectations’ because the expectations have grown with their responsibility.

The rating may be reasonable, yet the development is worth recognising. Ask which situations they can now handle, what decisions they make and where they still need support. Record enough context for the next reviewer to understand the difference.

The reverse deserves attention too. A stronger score might reflect a narrower workload, clearer instructions or a change in the person making the assessment. Those conditions can be helpful, but they affect what the comparison tells you. Discuss them before attributing all movement to individual performance.

Choose evidence that answers the actual question

If the goal concerns clearer handovers, look at whether the receiving colleague can continue the work with the information provided. If it concerns planning, examine how the person identified dependencies and responded when a deadline changed. A relevant example is more informative than a large collection of unrelated documents.

Ask the employee what they have noticed as well. Their explanation may identify preparation or judgement that is difficult to observe from the finished result. Treat that reflection as a perspective to explore alongside other evidence.

Confidence can be part of this discussion, but keep it separate from demonstrated capability. Someone may feel more confident before a skill is reliable, or become more aware of its difficulty as they learn. Ask what they can do and what they understand, as well as how they feel.

CIPD’s performance management guidance distinguishes task, contextual and adaptive performance, and considers both results and behaviours. Use those distinctions to check whether you are measuring the aspect that matters for this work. [1]

Use team patterns to decide where to look

At team level, look for patterns that justify a closer conversation. If several people are struggling with the same task, there may be a shared learning need, unclear instructions or a process that needs attention. The chart cannot tell you which explanation is right.

Before comparing groups, check who is included, which roles they perform and whether the assessments cover a similar period. A small group or a change in membership can alter a pattern considerably. Avoid turning a difference into a ranking without understanding it.

Then make a practical decision. Perhaps a manager needs time to coach someone, a learning activity needs revising or a team needs a clearer handover process. Agree what you expect that support to change and when you will review it.

The next useful question is often simple: what can this person do now that they could not do before, and what would help them take the next step? Let the answer give the score its meaning.

Source [1] CIPD Performance management An introduction (2026-01-29)

Explore how Maps and Pathways brings development conversations and organisational insight together.

Related insight: Why live reporting matters more than ever