GOALS.8:5 - Archetypal Grounding

Two employees have scores of 1.0 and 0.6. The first had a committed goal with established means and completed the defined result. The second pursued an aspirational search, discovered that a proposed solution would fail and helped two teams avoid wasted work. Their scores answer different goal comparisons. A direct ranking would lose that difference.

In a CFR conversation, the second employee’s evidence supports discussion of the search quality, the useful finding and the help provided. The team can recognize those contributions and decide what to pursue next. A promotion panel separately asks whether the employee can perform the proposed wider role. HRM.2 receives appropriate evidence, including relevant goal work, but needs the role-specific inference and comparison.

Change the condition: a valid reward arrangement already grants a specified payment for an evidenced contribution, and its terms are met. The separation of CFR and raw scores does not remove that obligation. HRM.3 makes the payment decision and implementation effective under the actual terms.