Starting point
A global consumer goods group, where I was employed permanently as HR Business Partner for one business unit. The unit had grown fast and had no works council (Betriebsrat, the elected employee body that exists in many German companies). What it also lacked was any process for reviewing performance, planning development or preparing successions. Pay adjustments and promotions came out of the impression of the respective line manager. Whoever was loud got noticed. Whoever did good work quietly did not.
Group headquarters provided a framework: a rating scale, a calendar, templates. What it did not provide was how that becomes a process in this unit that line managers take seriously. The managers themselves were strong professionally and untrained in people matters. Several had never held a structured review conversation, neither as a manager nor as an employee.
Without a works council there was also no counterpart to press for fairness and transparency the way one does in other units. The process itself had to take on that role: clear criteria, traceable decisions, a route for objection. A review system that line managers fill in reluctantly once a year is worse than none.
Approach
Three processes were built one after the other, not at the same time. Performance reviews first, because everything else rests on them. Then development conversations, then succession planning for the unit's key roles.
For the reviews, the criteria were worked out with the line managers rather than for them. What does "exceeds expectations" mean concretely in this role, how do you recognise it, which example from last year proves it. The answers became criteria per role family, on one page, in the language of the unit. The group scale stayed, but it acquired meaning.
All line managers were trained before the first cycle, not in operating the template but in the idea behind it: how to hold a conversation in which criticism lands without wounding; why a documented review also protects the manager when a difficult decision comes later; how to prepare employees so the conversation is not an interrogation. Every manager practised one conversation before holding a real one.
Employees learned before the start what would be assessed, who sees the review, how it feeds into pay and development, and whom to approach if they consider a review unfair. That did not replace a co-determination body, but it gave the process the transparency it would otherwise not have had without a works council. After the first cycle came development conversations in a simple format, three questions and a plan with dates, and after that succession planning for the ten roles whose loss would have hit the unit hardest.
Outcome
The review cycle was completed in full from year one, with every line manager and every employee in the unit. Reviews became traceable because they rested on criteria and examples, and the distribution of ratings became more plausible because managers applied the same standards. Pay rounds could be justified. In two difficult personnel decisions the following year, the documented basis was already in place.
The development conversations produced plans that actually had dates, and succession planning showed for three key roles that there was no internal successor, which triggered hiring in time rather than a crisis. Line managers used the conversations instead of ticking them off, because they understood what they were for.
What transfers to your company
- Train the idea, not the toolWhoever understands why uses the process. Whoever only knows how fills it in. Every manager practises one conversation before holding a real one.
- Criteria with the line managers, not for themOne page per role family, in the language of the unit, with examples. Then the scale means something.
- Without a works council, the process itself needs the transparencyWho sees what, how it feeds into pay and development, where objections go. Explained before the start, not after.
- One after the other, not all at onceReviews first, then development, then succession. Three processes at once overwhelm any line manager.
Case study from an earlier permanent role, anonymised. No company names, only the industry and the role. More about me
Frequently asked questions
Was there a works council?
No, not in this unit. That made the introduction formally simpler and substantively more demanding, because the process itself had to ensure the fairness a works council would otherwise insist on. With a works council, a review system would be subject to co-determination under Section 87 (1) no. 6 of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG).
Was this an interim assignment?
No. I was a permanent employee, HR Business Partner for the unit. It was the role in which I learned what talent management processes have to look like for line managers to use them rather than endure them.
How long did the build take?
Around three months from the first criteria workshop to the first review round. Development conversations and succession planning followed in the two half-years after that.
What does this have to do with AI in HR?
More than it seems. An AI tool that summarises performance data or suggests ratings needs the same foundation: clear criteria, trained managers, transparency for employees, and where a works council exists, an agreement before the start.
Does this transfer to a company with 80 employees?
Yes, and there it is usually the first talent management process of any kind. One page of criteria, one training session, one cycle. Succession planning can wait until the first two are running.