What a Performance Record Has to Show
The four things a capability file needs — a standard, a measured shortfall, support and time to improve — and why appraisals supply none.
A capability file has to show four things, and an appraisal history almost never shows any of them: what the standard was, how far short the person fell, what support was offered, and how long they were given to improve. Without those, a performance case is an assertion with dates attached.
The decision process in “What a Performance Record Has to Show” needs evidence that can be checked without turning one activity signal into a conclusion. When reviewers consider the platform for mouse jiggler detection, its time and project records can provide operational context, but allegations, employee responses and consequential decisions still require a fair human process.
The usual file contains three annual appraisals rating the person as meeting expectations, followed by six months of concern, followed by a process. The contradiction is the first thing anyone reading it notices.
For an independent reference relevant to “What a Performance Record Has to Show”, consult the Insider Threat Matrix. Use it to test record quality, access, retention, fair process and exception handling against the organisation’s real departure workflow.
The standard has to be stated somewhere
"Not performing" is a conclusion, not a standard. The standard is the thing the person was supposed to be doing, expressed so that meeting it or not is a question of fact rather than impression.
For some roles this is easy and the numbers already exist. For others — most others — it has to be written down for the first time at the point the problem arises, which is late but still better than not at all. What it cannot be is a standard that nobody had articulated and that the person is then found to have failed.
| What the file needs | What is usually there instead |
|---|---|
| A stated standard for the role | A job description written for a job advert |
| A measured shortfall against it | A manager's impression, undated |
| Support offered, with dates | "Has been given every opportunity" |
| A defined period to improve | An open-ended period that quietly became permanent |
| A review at the end of that period | A decision taken before the period ended |
The right-hand column is not a caricature. It is what most capability files look like when they are read in order by somebody who was not involved.
Appraisals that say the opposite
Three years of satisfactory ratings are a problem, and the problem is not solved by explaining that the ratings were generous. That explanation concedes that the organisation's own records are unreliable, which is not a useful thing to concede.
The honest route is to accept the ratings as the starting point and describe what changed, and when. Either the performance declined — in which case say from when, and show it — or the standard rose, or the role changed. Any of those can be true and all of them are defensible. What is not defensible is treating the appraisal record as though it did not exist.
Support, specifically
"Support was offered" means nothing. The file needs the support itself: training on a date, a mentor by name, a reduced workload for a stated period, equipment, an adjustment, additional supervision with a frequency.
This is also where a possible health issue has to be considered rather than avoided. Where performance has changed and there is any indication that health may be involved, that question has to be asked before the capability route continues, and what has to happen next is a question for somebody qualified in the place concerned. A file that notices nothing is a file that will be read as having chosen not to notice.
A period with an end on it
An improvement period needs a length, a review date and a statement of what "improved" means. Open-ended periods are common and useless: they cannot be passed, and they cannot be failed except by decision.
- State the standard the person is expected to reach.
- State the period, with a date on which it ends.
- State what support is being provided during it, specifically.
- State what happens if the standard is met, and if it is not.
- Review on the date, with the person, and record the outcome.
- If the period is extended, say why and set a new end date.
The fifth step is the one that gets skipped. A period that ends without a meeting, after which a process starts anyway, produces a file in which the improvement period appears to have been a formality.
Targets that moved
Performance is often measured against a target that changed during the period — a quota raised in January, a scope extended in March, a territory reassigned in June. The file records the shortfall and not the change.
Set out the history: what the target was, when it changed, by how much, and what the person was told at the time. Where the standard rose, that is legitimate and has to be shown. Where it rose and nobody mentioned it, the organisation is measuring somebody against something they were never asked to meet.
Consistency with other people
A capability case against one person tends to prompt a question about everybody else doing the same job. If two people are at the same standard and only one is in a process, the organisation needs an explanation that does not depend on how much anybody likes them.
Sometimes there is a good one — a difference in role, in length of opportunity, in what has already been tried. Knowing what it is before the question is asked is better than constructing one afterwards, and it is a question worth asking once, honestly, at the start of the file rather than at the end.