The essentials
- Define what each person has observed and who owns the final conversation.
- Give each reviewer questions that match their relationship.
- Do not average conflicting opinions without understanding them.
Map the reviewers
Define what each person has observed and who owns the final conversation. Add reviewers because of relevant work, not seniority alone.
- Name the accountable manager.
- Name functional, project and regional contributors as relevant.
- Record the work and period each reviewer observed.
- Confirm access to each response.
Collect separate perspectives
Give each reviewer questions that match their relationship. Keep original responses available to the accountable manager where permissions allow.
- What expectations applied to the work you observed?
- What did the employee contribute?
- What evidence supports your view?
- What changed during the period?
- What development opportunity would you suggest?
Reconcile differences
Do not average conflicting opinions without understanding them. Different work can expose different strengths and constraints. If using weights, agree their purpose and definitions in advance.
- Identify agreement across sources.
- Discuss material differences with the relevant contributors.
- Check whether each view has comparable evidence.
- Record unresolved questions and the person responsible for clarification.
Hold one accountable conversation
The employee should understand how each perspective influenced the review. End with an integrated development plan and clear ownership.
- Explain the reasoning behind the assessment.
- Invite corrections to factual information.
- Agree actions and follow-up dates.
Explore multi-manager reviews for the organisational model.
Turn the guidance into your next conversation.
Choose one action from this template, agree who owns it and set a date to review what changed. To explore how your process could work in New Dynamics, bring your current workflow to a demonstration.
