Don't Trust the HR Talent File

THIS WEEK

A senior leader stepped into a new role after her predecessor was let go for performance reasons. 

Soon after starting, she requested a “talent file” from HR: performance ratings, assessments, development notes on the team she inherited.

The picture looked strong.

High performers. Real high-potentials in the mix. A team that should have been delivering exceptional results.

She took the file at face value. It took her 3 months to realize the ratings were unreliable. She discovered that the "star" ratings were not based on objective output, but on a culture of favouritism. 

By the time she discovered the team lacked the skills to hit her new mandates, she had almost missed her window to address the situation before the team's failures became her own.

THE REALITY CHECK

When you inherit a team, you inherit someone else's judgements about that team.

The performance reviews and assessments feel like data.

It isn't. It's an artefact of a relationship that no longer exists - between your predecessor and the people now reporting to you.

Performance assessments are produced by someone. If that person was removed, struggled, or quietly failed, the ratings they granted are worth digging into.

A leader who avoided difficult conversations will have left behind inflated scores.

A leader who played favourites will have created a polarized picture - everyone either outstanding or marginal, nobody in between.

A leader under pressure may have protected loyal allies regardless of output.

The HR talent file doesn't tell you this. It just shows numbers and labels.

First, look for polarization: everyone is either a rockstar or failing, with no middle ground.

Second, notice tension: if the file says two people are top performers, but can barely work together, something in the evaluation process failed to capture reality.

Third, no one from the team was considered for your role: if performance and potential are as strong as the HR file suggests, why did the organization look elsewhere?

Before trusting the HR file, test it against reality.

A few questions worth asking HR, your manager, or peers who've worked with the team:

1/ What did this team actually deliver in the last two years and what did they miss?

2/ If I asked each person's internal clients how they'd rate them, would it match the file?

3/ When was the last time someone on this team was exited for performance?

4/ How were these ratings calibrated - against other teams, or in isolation?

5/ If budget forced a cut of one role, which would it be?

Beyond these questions, executives who navigate this well do a few things early:

They name the uncertainty directly. Telling a team "I'm going to form my own view over the next 2 months" is not a threat - it's transparency.

They ask laterally - of peers, internal clients, skip-level reports. Rather than relying solely on files and direct conversation.

And if there's a real chance someone won't work out, they start exploring replacements before making the final call. This could include asking HR to begin a quiet search, holding skip-level meetings to assess internal talent, or reaching out to their network.

Research on CEO transitions shows 66% wish they had moved faster on people decisions. For leaders hired from outside, that number rises to 76%.

The instinct to give people time is reasonable. But inherited ratings can extend that patience past the point where it's useful - because the HR file says things are fine, even when they aren't.

The sooner you get clarity, the sooner you can impact the results.