A person may teach for part of the week and lead a subject area for the rest. An operational colleague may also coordinate a project. In either situation, a development conversation needs to recognise the different demands within the same working week.

Before discussing overall performance, make those responsibilities visible. Ask what the person is expected to deliver in each area, how their time is intended to be divided and whether that matches what is actually happening. An outdated description is a poor starting point for a useful review.

Give each responsibility enough attention

Discuss each area in its own context. What is going well? What does good work look like here? Which situations have been difficult, and what support has been available? Allow the employee to identify work that might be less visible to the person leading the conversation.

Imagine a teacher who also leads a subject across a school. Their classroom practice may be well established, while supporting colleagues to use a new approach is unfamiliar. They could reasonably feel confident in one part of the role and need guidance in the other.

A useful review would explore those experiences separately. The conversation about subject leadership might focus on planning a discussion with colleagues or responding to questions. That gives the teacher a clearer development task than a broad instruction to become more confident.

Use evidence that fits the work

Choose examples relevant to each responsibility. Evidence from routine delivery may tell you little about how someone coordinates a project, just as a well-run project may not describe their day-to-day contribution. Ask what the example shows and what it leaves uncertain.

Where another colleague has a relevant view, agree how their input will be gathered and used. Explain who will see it and give the employee an opportunity to add context. Keep the request focused on the work being discussed rather than collecting general opinions about the person.

Take account of the opportunity someone has had to demonstrate a skill. A new responsibility, limited time or an unresolved dependency may affect what can reasonably be expected. Explore those factors before interpreting an unfinished task as a lack of capability.

Agree priorities across the whole week

Separate discussions still need a combined view of workload. Two reasonable development goals can become unrealistic when each manager assumes they have access to the same available time. Bring the people who set priorities into the decision where necessary.

For the teacher in our example, preparing a subject workshop may require time currently allocated to another task. Agree that adjustment before adding the workshop to the development plan. Check who can provide feedback on the preparation and what support is available if the work proves larger than expected.

Clarify how competing requests will be resolved. The employee should know who can decide which task takes priority and how to raise a conflict. Avoid leaving them to negotiate incompatible expectations repeatedly on their own.

Keep the development plan manageable

Choose the most useful next step across the responsibilities being reviewed. There does not have to be a separate improvement task for every part of the job. Some areas may need continued support or recognition while attention goes to a newer responsibility.

Record the agreed action, the time and help available, and the point when it will be revisited. At that review, consider both the learning and its effect on the wider workload. If responsibilities have shifted, update the plan with the person rather than carrying old expectations forward automatically.

Before closing the conversation, ask the employee to look at the plan as a whole: does this reflect the work you actually do, and is there enough room to make the agreed progress?

Use our guidance to prepare a development conversation that reflects the role.

Related insight: A different approach to professional growth