Phase 3 · Module 9
Use these scenarios for team coaching sessions, 1:1 debriefs, or certification preparation
Scenario 1
Situation
During the annual review, your employee — Teresa — is visibly shocked by her "Needs Improvement" rating. She says: "This is the first time anyone has said anything negative about my performance. I thought I was doing well."
Your Task
Handle the immediate review conversation and commit to preventing this from happening again.
Step-by-Step Guidance
In the moment: do not defend the rating or say "I tried to tell you." That response is unproductive.
Acknowledge her reaction with empathy: "I hear that this is surprising to you — and I'm sorry for that. You deserved to hear this sooner."
Take responsibility: "I should have been clearer earlier in the year about where things stood."
Do not soften or change the rating — if it is accurate, it stays.
Walk through the specific examples behind each rating point — she deserves to understand the evidence.
Give her a clear picture of what improvement looks like: "For this rating to change, here is what I need to see in the next six months."
After the review: reflect seriously on your coaching frequency. Were you giving regular feedback? Were you specific? Did you document?
Commit to weekly or bi-weekly check-ins for the rest of the year.
Facilitator Debrief
An employee blindsided by a review rating is evidence of a coaching failure, not just a performance failure. If the annual review is the first time someone hears they are underperforming — the manager did not do their job during the year.
Key Principle
No surprises: If you would not say something is a surprise at the annual review, it belongs in a 1:1 now.
Scenario 2
Situation
After months of coaching, documentation, and clear expectations, your employee — Victor — continues to miss performance targets. You and HR have agreed that a formal PIP is the appropriate next step.
Your Task
Deliver the PIP conversation in a way that is firm, fair, and genuinely supportive.
Step-by-Step Guidance
Prepare thoroughly: review all previous coaching documentation before the meeting.
Have HR present or at least fully briefed — do not deliver a PIP without HR sign-off.
Set the tone clearly but humanely: "Victor, I want to have an honest conversation with you today. Given the pattern over the past few months, we are moving to a formal performance improvement plan."
Walk through the PIP document point by point — no surprises in the paperwork.
Be clear about what success looks like: "If you meet all of these targets over the next 60 days, we close the PIP successfully."
Be honest about what failure means — without being cruel: "If the targets are not met, this could result in further action including separation."
Do NOT set gotcha goals — every target must be genuinely achievable.
Schedule weekly check-ins for the duration of the PIP — never go silent on someone in a PIP.
Document everything: the meeting, Victor's response, and all subsequent check-ins.
Facilitator Debrief
A well-run PIP is not a firing mechanism — it is a final, structured attempt at support. The manager's job is to give the employee every possible tool to succeed. Whether they do is then on them.
Key Principle
A PIP delivered correctly has three qualities: clear, achievable targets; genuine support throughout; and honest consequences communicated upfront.
Scenario 3
Situation
You notice that when reviewing your team, you tend to rate employees you interact with most frequently — who sit near you, who come to your office — more positively than equally strong performers who work remotely or independently. You are concerned your ratings may reflect proximity, not performance.
Your Task
Identify and correct performance review bias before it damages fairness and trust.
Step-by-Step Guidance
Name the bias pattern to yourself: this is likely proximity/affinity bias — rating people you see more as performing better.
Pull the evidence for every rating: what specific, documented behaviors support each score? If you cannot name three specific examples, the rating is not evidence-based.
Compare remote and in-office employees with similar roles and outputs: are the rating differences justified by documented performance?
Revise any ratings that cannot be supported by documented evidence.
In calibration sessions: actively advocate for employees who may be under-visible — "Here is what Maria has delivered this year, even though she works remotely."
Going forward: document wins and contributions for all employees throughout the year — not just the ones you see daily.
Consider quarterly output reviews so annual ratings are built on a year of evidence, not recency.
Facilitator Debrief
Proximity bias is one of the most common and least-examined review biases. Managers who actively monitor their own patterns — and correct them — build reputations for fairness that attract and retain strong performers.
Key Principle
Fair reviews require evidence, not impressions. If you cannot document it, you cannot rate it.