You arrive at an appraisal feeling pleased with your progress. Your manager sees a mixed picture. Or perhaps the positions are reversed: you have focused on everything that felt difficult, while your manager has noticed how much you have learned.

When the two views appear side by side, it can be tempting to decide immediately whose assessment is correct. Start by finding out what each person is describing. A difference may reflect the work each has seen, the standard each is using or the period each has in mind.

Check that you are discussing the same work

Agree the role, responsibility and period under discussion. Someone may be thinking about a successful piece of project work while their manager is assessing the routine work that continued alongside it. Both contributions matter, but combining them without explanation makes the discussion harder to follow.

Separate the outcome from the way it was achieved. A deadline might have been met while colleagues received information too late to prepare their own work. Equally, someone may have collaborated carefully on a project whose final result depended on decisions outside their control.

Maps and Pathways uses a shared map to bring performance and behaviour into the conversation. Its value depends on the explanation around a marker: the examples, expectations and context that make the position understandable. [1]

Ask for an example before debating the assessment

Imagine a project coordinator who describes communication as a strength because weekly updates always go out on time. Their manager is concerned because urgent changes between updates have sometimes arrived too late. They have been evaluating different parts of the same responsibility.

A useful question would be: ‘Which situation most influenced your view?’ Let each person explain an example, including what they observed and why it mattered. Ask what the other person could see at the time. The coordinator may discover an expectation that was never made clear; the manager may discover information they had not been given.

Listen for broad labels that need more detail. ‘Not proactive enough’ could refer to raising a risk, proposing a solution or acting without approval. Until that meaning is clear, the employee cannot reasonably decide what to change. Managers should be prepared to clarify their own wording.

Keep the next step useful even when views differ

In the example, the pair could agree which changes need an immediate update, who needs to receive it and how the coordinator can check it has reached them. They could review two upcoming project changes together. That creates a shared expectation for the next piece of work.

Neither person needs to pretend that the whole discussion is resolved. Record a remaining difference accurately and agree what further information would help. If a decision has formal consequences, explain the organisation’s applicable review process clearly. Do not present a disagreement as consent.

Employees should have room to add context and challenge an interpretation. Managers should be able to explain a concern directly and respectfully. A conversation that preserves both perspectives gives the next review something concrete to return to.

Before changing a marker simply to make the map look tidier, ask what you have learned from the gap. If it has exposed an unclear expectation or an overlooked contribution, the conversation has already found something worth addressing.

Source [1] Maps and Pathways Guidance Hub

Use the Guidance Hub to prepare for a conversation where perspectives differ.

Related insight: Seeing yourself as others do