1. Managing Talent is a matter of Human Resources alone
Let’s start from the beginning: talent management is a topic exclusively for Human Resources (HR). HR recruits, HR explains, HR consolidates, HR analyzes, and HR sends out the results. The leadership participates in the indispensable minimum and, of course, when things go less well, the topic returns to HR.

2. Never clearly define what “good performance” means”
The more abstract the definition of performance is, the more room there is for creativity. For this step, it is very important to mix together results, potential, development, and general perceptions, because if it is not possible to clearly explain what distinguishes good performance from mediocre performance, the system gains an essential quality – ambiguity.

3. Building a perfect and impractical skills model
Invest months of work into a model with dozens of critical competencies, factors, sub-factors, and behaviors. The more complex it is, the better: it increases the probability that no one will use it because no one truly understands it. The evaluator will fill in “on the fly,” defensively, because the operation does not wait to discuss definitions. The model looks good in presentations and is irrelevant in decisions.

4. Evaluating one thing, but rewarding another
Evaluate individual results, but promote those with visibility. Evaluate skills, but increase those who deliver results.
At the end of the day, when what is measured does not correspond to what is valued, the system gains an important advantage: people stop taking it very seriously.

5. Ensuring that each person assesses in their own way (after all, the evaluators are always right)
Very important note: Avoid calibration processes or discussions between departments.
If each evaluator interprets the criteria in their own way, some will naturally be more demanding, others more generous, thus creating an organizational environment rich in variety of evaluations for similar performances (and consequent advancements).

6. Decide first, seek evidence later
The premise here is clear: evaluate and promote people without structured evidence of performance or development. If possible, there should be a foundation in recent impressions or the memory of the last meeting. The absence of consistent data essentially keeps the process agile, intuitive, and difficult to challenge.

7. Disseminating results is already a form of feedback
It is widely known that feedback is a powerful management tool. In this sense, after completing the cycle, you should communicate the final rating without hesitation. Structured conversations about development, concrete examples, or improvement plans can introduce unnecessary complexity into the process. After all, knowing the outcome of the evaluation is in itself a very efficient form of feedback.

8. Promoting high-performers to Leaders as a retention strategy
It’s a millennia-old recipe: get the best performers – those who close deals, deliver innovative projects, generate above-average results – and put them in charge of people. No training, no filter, no assessment of leadership potential. If they have always been the best at all the professional challenges they’ve faced, they will surely succeed again in this new phase.

9. Create systems without consequences
Guaranteeing that the evaluation system has no real impact on the organization’s decisions, such as who advances, who develops, who assumes new responsibilities. Thus, performance evaluation and career management can coexist in a perfectly harmonious way (i.e., without one influencing the other), and we get the essential: the processes become an administrative ritual and, occasionally, a collective exercise of guesswork.

10. Times change, but the system does not need to change with them
Finally, it is very important to design systems as if the work were stable and predictable, ignoring the impact of artificial intelligence and new forms of collaboration. In this way, we ensure that the systems remain stable and perfectly aligned with a reality that no longer exists. If it always worked, why change now?

This “manual upside down” brings together, with some irony, only ten common steps among the many possible ones. The goal was not to exhaust the topic; it was merely to provoke reflection and support the identification of patterns that, often in a silent way, end up compromising the credibility and usefulness of the main talent management systems, even in organizations and teams that work daily to improve them. Therefore, if, throughout the reading, you have recognized some of these steps, this may be less a cause for concern and more a good sign: it means that there is always room to question established practices and evolve the tools for managing and developing people within organizations.

If this reading has caused you any intrigue or sparked curiosity to reflect on how these processes work in your organization, we have provided a brief overview below. checklist with some practical questions that can help start this reflection.

Checklist
1. Do the people in the organization know clearly what is needed to progress in their careers?
2. Are the criteria measurable and with concrete examples for each level of performance?
3. Are the criteria measurable and with concrete examples for each level of performance? Do the performance criteria reflect the actual work that people do?
4. Do employees with similar performance receive similar evaluations across teams and departments?
5. Do employees with similar performance receive similar evaluations across teams and departments?
6. Are the decisions regarding promotion and development explainable and supported by evidence?
7. Are talent data used to make decisions, and not just to report on them?
8. Does the performance evaluation system effectively influence relevant decisions (promotion, development, succession)?
9. Are current performance and leadership potential evaluated separately?
10. Are the leaders prepared to provide structured feedback and discuss development with their teams?
11. Are the skills valued today the same as the organization will need tomorrow?
11. Do people trust the system?
12. If the organization identifies the need to review or redesign these systems, is there internal capacity (time, competencies, etc.) to do so in a consistent manner?

Carolina Gonçalves, Consultant, SHL Portugal
José Sintra, Head of People Strategy, Vieira de Almeida

Published in the Human Magazine on March 30, 2026