Evaluated competencies

Almost everyone writes the competency name. What almost no one writes is the anchor: a sentence saying what you see when the score is low and what you see when it is high.

Without an anchor, two managers using the same 1-to-5 scale are measuring different things — and calibration will try to patch this at the end of the cycle, with everyone's memory already contaminated. Writing the anchor takes ten minutes per competency and is what separates an assessment from a lottery.

Bad anchor: "communication — communicates well".
Good anchor: "low: has to be chased to find out the progress; high: the customer and the team know about the risk before it becomes a problem".

Saving without the anchor is allowed, but the system warns you — on purpose.

Lists the competencies that will be assessed in the cycle, with weight, category, order and the "how to assess" text for each one. This is where the cycle's yardstick is written before the first score: whoever assesses reads this list to know what a low score and a high score mean in each competency. A competency can be general or restricted to a job position (column "Only for the position"), and the list is the platform standard: search, column filters, views saved per user and export of the whole set to Excel, PDF or CSV.

It is the most skipped field and the most important one. Without it, "Communication score 4" means one thing to one manager and another thing to the manager next door — and the whole cycle turns into noise comparable to nothing. Write the OBSERVABLE behavior for each score, not the adjective.

Bad: "score 4 = communicates well". Good: "score 4 = anticipates risk in writing before it becomes a problem, and the message is understood without needing a meeting". The second can be checked; the first cannot.

The weight multiplies the score of that competency within the average. A competency with a high weight is one whose absence you would accept losing people over.

Beware of the long, flat list: ten competencies with the same weight prioritize nothing, tire the assessor and produce scores by inertia. Five to seven competencies, with different weights, is the size at which the assessor still thinks about each one.

A blank weight or one less than 1 is corrected to 3 on saving. The weight used in a score is frozen inside it: changing the weight in the next cycle does not rewrite old averages.

A competency without a position applies to everyone in the cycle — it is what the company expects from any person. A competency with a position only appears for whoever holds that position, and it is where what is specific to the job comes in. Each person answers the general ones plus those of their position.

The category (delivery, behavior, technical, leadership) helps you see the imbalance: a yardstick with only "technical" produces specialists who cannot get along; a yardstick with only "behavior" produces nice people who do not deliver.

A criterion defined after knowing the answers is a yardstick drawn around the favorite — the same trap as in recruitment. That is why the system refuses to save a competency for a cycle that has already left the design phase.

Rewriting the yardstick in the next cycle is normal and healthy; what is protected is the past: the competency name is copied into each score already given, so a new yardstick does not change the meaning of an old score.

When you save a view with the Views button, it stores four things: the search text, the applied filters, which columns appear (and in what order) and which column the list is sorted by. Applying the view restores everything at once — including resetting the sort and the page you were on, so the result is exactly what the view describes. Views saved before this version remain valid: whatever they didn't store simply doesn't change when applied.

Nas fichas, sair de um campo já dispara a conferência do que dá para conferir na hora: campo obrigatório deixado em branco e e-mail mal formado. O aviso aparece embaixo do campo e desaparece quando você começa a corrigir. Campo numérico não precisa de aviso: ele simplesmente não aceita letra enquanto você digita. Isso é conforto, não a validação final: ao salvar, o sistema confere tudo de novo do lado do servidor.

You can import: the spreadsheet has the columns Competency, Description, How to assess and Weight, and the import does not duplicate a name that already exists within the same cycle.

Reusing is more than allowed, it is recommended: a stable competency is what makes two cycles comparable and lets you say "it improved". Changing the whole yardstick every semester is the most efficient way to never know whether someone has grown.

Open the record and look at the Timeline on the right: it shows each change as "from one value to another", with the person and the date. When there are many changes, use the two filters at the top of the timeline — one by field, the other by person. The search runs in the database, so old changes show up just the same. You can also ask Tenkai: "who changed contract 482?".