01The Problem
The team was busy and still missing target. Everything was being counted — messages, calls, profiles put forward — and none of it explained why the results weren’t landing.
Because the reporting measured effort rather than outcome, a week with a lot of activity looked like a good week even when almost none of it progressed. Nobody could tell a volume problem from a quality problem, so the only available response to bad numbers was to ask for more activity — which usually made quality worse.
02The Old Process
- Activity counts collected weekly, with no definition of what counted
- No shared standard for whether a candidate was worth putting forward
- Quality assessed by whoever happened to review it that week
- The weekly meeting spent on status recitation, not decisions
- Performance conversations based on impression rather than a written standard
03The Objective
Give leadership a weekly view that points at a next action rather than delivering a verdict — and give the team a written definition of good, so a difficult conversation is about a standard rather than about whether someone is trying hard enough.
04My Approach
I worked backwards from the hiring target to the number of final-stage conversations it would require at different conversion rates. That arithmetic reframed everything: the same target needs wildly different amounts of activity depending on candidate quality, so quality was the lever and it wasn’t being measured at all.
Which led to the idea the system is built on. Putting a candidate forward isn’t the achievement; putting the right one forward is. Counting submissions rewards volume. What needed measuring was whether each one had a defensible reason behind it.
I deliberately did not build a live dashboard. Weekly was the right cadence — a daily view would have turned into a surveillance tool and killed the trust the thing depends on.
05The System
| Layer | What it does |
|---|---|
| Weekly scorecard | Five weighted categories — output, quality, process discipline, communication and development — resolving to a single weekly figure |
| Three-band rubric | Every category has a written description of below target, meets expectation and exceeds. No interpretation needed. |
| Ownership matrix | Each role has defined primary ownership and a must-deliver list, so nothing sits in the gap between two people |
| Quality standard | A documented minimum before a candidate goes forward, with strong and watch-out indicators across five check areas |
| Weekly review format | A fixed set of review items, ending in one main blocker and one coaching focus for the following week |
The layer people underestimate is the rubric. Once “meets expectation” is written down for each category, a weekly score stops being an opinion and a coaching conversation stops being a negotiation.
I also documented how the scorecard should be introduced and reviewed, because the standard only works if people understand what is being measured and why.
06The Tools
| Tool | Role in the system |
|---|---|
| Microsoft Excel | Weekly scoring model, weighted categories, conversion arithmetic and the management view |
| Microsoft Word | The rubric, ownership matrix, quality standard, review template and introduction script |
| Microsoft 365 | Shared access and version control, so one copy of the standard exists |
07The Workflow
- Through the week → activity and outcomes logged in the structured tracker as they happen
- End of week → the scoring model reads the tracker and resolves five categories to one figure
- Score produced → each category shows which band it landed in, against the written rubric
- Review meeting → fixed agenda, ending with one blocker named and one coaching focus set
- Next week → that focus is what gets checked first
08The Result
A low week now identifies which of the five categories caused it, which turns “do more” into something specific and coachable.
Quality stopped being a matter of individual judgement — the standard is written, applies to everyone, and can be pointed at. And because ownership is defined per role, the gaps between stages became somebody’s job rather than nobody’s.
The weekly meeting changed shape. It used to produce a list of what everyone had done; it now produces one blocker and one coaching focus.
09What this means for you
You see what is happening without having to chase anyone for it, and what you see tells you where to intervene rather than just how everyone feels the week went.
The commercial version: you find out a target is at risk early enough to do something, instead of at the end of the month.
There is a quieter benefit too. When the standard is written down, performance conversations stop being personal. That is better for the manager having them and considerably better for the person on the other side — and it is usually the difference between a team that improves and a team that turns over.
As your Executive Assistant
Here’s how the same thinking shows up on your desk.
A weekly brief, ready for you
The numbers, what changed and what needs your attention, written up before your review.
Meetings that end in decisions
I prepare the agenda, capture the actions and track them until they’re closed.
Standards, written down
So hard conversations are about an agreed standard, not about the person.