DEATH STAR EVIL CORP™ III — Darth's Vaders annual performance review
Scott Gardner ·
IMPERIAL PEOPLE FUNCTION
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW — IMPERIAL STANDARD YEAR 3 ABY
FORM DS-APR-001 (REVISED)
Employee Name: Lord Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith Employee Number: IMP-00001¹ Grade: [The grade field has been left blank. The People Function reviewed the grading framework. The grading framework goes up to Grade 22. The People Function considered Grade 22. The People Function left the field blank.]² Department: Supreme Command / The Dark Side / [third field added at subject's request, content: "All of it"] Line Manager: The Emperor (Sheev Palpatine, Supreme Chancellor Emeritus, Dark Lord of the Sith, Grade: Above the Framework) Review Period: Imperial Standard Year 3 ABY Review Completed By: Senior People Partner Maren Quellis, Grade P-6 Date Completed: Day 14, Month 3, 3 ABY Date Submitted: Day 14, Month 3, 3 ABY Reason review was submitted same day it was completed: The People Function works quickly when motivated.³
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO REVIEWING OFFICER:
This is a standard Annual Performance Review. It follows the standard Imperial People Function APR process as documented in DS-HR-PROC-APR-001. All fields must be completed. All ratings must be evidence-based. All development areas must be framed constructively. The People Function reminds reviewing officers that the APR is a developmental tool, not a disciplinary instrument, and that findings should reflect observed behaviours against the Imperial Core Competency Framework (ICCF v4.1) using specific, measurable examples.
The People Function also reminds reviewing officers that the standard safeguarding provisions apply and that if at any point during the review process the reviewing officer feels unsafe they should contact the Employee Assistance Programme.
The Employee Assistance Programme voicemail is full.
The People Function is looking into this.⁴
PART ONE: SELF-ASSESSMENT
The employee is invited to complete this section prior to the review meeting. Responses should be honest, reflective, and forward-looking. Maximum 500 words per question.
Question 1: What have been your most significant achievements this year?
Employee response:
The destruction of Alderaan demonstrated strategic decisiveness and clear communication of Imperial intent to the remaining systems. The subsequent pursuit and near-capture of the Rebel Alliance's primary command structure across multiple theatres reflects sustained operational focus. The interrogation programme has yielded actionable intelligence on several occasions. Admiral Ozzel was replaced efficiently. Admiral Ozzel's replacement has performed adequately. The fleet is feared. These are achievements.
People Function note: Response is 79 words. Maximum is 500. The People Function invited Lord Vader to expand. Lord Vader said the response was complete. The People Function has accepted this.⁵
Question 2: What areas would you like to develop in the coming year?
Employee response:
None.
People Function note: The People Function appreciates brevity. The People Function notes that "None" does not constitute a development plan under DS-HR-PROC-APR-001 Section 4.2, which requires at minimum one development objective with a measurable outcome and a target completion date. The People Function raised this with Lord Vader. Lord Vader looked at the People Function. The People Function has documented "strategic delegation" as a development area on Lord Vader's behalf. Lord Vader has not contested this. The People Function is choosing to interpret this as acceptance.⁶
Question 3: How have you demonstrated the Imperial Values this year?
The Imperial Values, as defined in DS-HR-VALUES-001, are: Loyalty, Excellence, Order, Decisive Action, and Respect for the Chain of Command.
Employee response:
Excellence: Yes. Order: Yes. Decisive Action: Yes. Loyalty: To the Emperor. Respect for the Chain of Command: The chain of command respects me.
People Function note: The People Function notes that Respect for the Chain of Command is defined in DS-HR-VALUES-001 as a bidirectional competency. The People Function notes Lord Vader's response addresses only one direction. The People Function has decided not to raise this.⁷
PART TWO: COMPETENCY RATINGS
Rate the employee against each Imperial Core Competency. Ratings available: Exceeds Expectations (EE), Meets Expectations (ME), Partially Meets (PM), Does Not Meet (DNM). All ratings must be supported by evidence.
Competency 1: Communication & Influence Rating: Exceeds Expectations
Lord Vader communicates with clarity, economy, and consistent impact. Messages are direct, unambiguous, and retained by recipients. The People Function notes no instance across the review period in which a communication from Lord Vader was misunderstood, ignored, or required follow-up clarification.
The People Function notes several instances in which communications were not followed up because the recipient was no longer available to receive follow-up.
The People Function notes these are distinct categories.
The People Function notes both represent effective communication under different frameworks.
The People Function is rating this Exceeds Expectations.⁸
Competency 2: Decision Making Under Pressure Rating: Exceeds Expectations
Lord Vader makes decisions rapidly, confidently, and without apparent requirement for consensus or committee input. Decisions are implemented immediately. Decisions are rarely revisited. The People Function notes that the irreversibility of several decisions made during the review period falls outside standard governance parameters but acknowledges that decisiveness is the competency under assessment, not reversibility.
The People Function notes reversibility is not currently a rated competency under ICCF v4.1.
The People Function notes it has recommended adding reversibility as a rated competency in its last three framework review submissions.
The People Function notes none of these submissions have been actioned.
The People Function notes this is relevant context.⁹
Competency 3: People Leadership Rating: Exceeds Expectations
Lord Vader leads with presence, consistency, and an unambiguous performance culture. Expectations are set clearly. Consequences of underperformance are communicated and applied without delay. The People Function notes that retention metrics for Lord Vader's direct reports are below the organisational average.
The People Function notes that this reflects, in part, a high-performance culture in which underperforming individuals exit the function rapidly.
The People Function notes that "exit the function" is being used in its broadest possible sense.
The People Function notes the succession pipeline is active and has demonstrated the capacity to identify replacements within minutes.
The People Function notes Admiral Piett has now been in post for [REDACTED] months, which is the longest tenure of any of Lord Vader's direct reports in the review period, and rates this as a positive trend.
The People Function notes Admiral Piett's response to being informed he was cited as a positive trend was to close his eyes briefly and then thank the People Function and return to his duties.
The People Function notes this is a satisfactory response.¹⁰
Competency 4: Stakeholder Management Rating: Exceeds Expectations
Lord Vader manages upward stakeholder relationships with consistent effectiveness. The Emperor expresses satisfaction with Lord Vader's performance. The People Function notes this is the primary stakeholder relationship for this role and that its health is therefore the primary indicator for this competency.
Lateral stakeholder relationships are more varied. The People Function notes that several senior officers have requested transfers following direct engagement with Lord Vader. The People Function notes that these requests have, without exception, not been granted, and that the officers in question have remained in post and continued to perform their duties, which the People Function is rating as a stakeholder management outcome.
The People Function notes this rating methodology has been reviewed internally.
The People Function notes it has been reviewed by the People Function.
The People Function notes the People Function approved it.¹¹
Competency 5: Adherence to People Policy Rating: Exceeds Expectations
[This rating was originally Partially Meets. The original rating was amended following the review meeting. The amendment was made by the People Function. The People Function made the amendment on the same day as the review meeting. The People Function made the amendment within forty minutes of the review meeting concluding. The People Function has not elaborated on the specific events of those forty minutes. The People Function notes the amended rating is Exceeds Expectations. The People Function notes this rating is now final. The People Function notes it is very final.]¹²
Competency 6: Collaboration & Team Working Rating: Exceeds Expectations
[The People Function acknowledges this rating requires contextual explanation.]
Lord Vader operates, by the nature of his role, with significant autonomy. The People Function notes that collaboration is defined in ICCF v4.1 as "working with others to achieve shared objectives." The People Function notes that Lord Vader does work with others. The People Function notes that the others work with Lord Vader whether they intended to or not. The People Function notes that shared objectives are established and pursued. The People Function notes the objectives are Lord Vader's and that they become shared at the point at which Lord Vader communicates them.
The People Function notes it considered this Partially Meets for eleven days.
The People Function notes it has rated it Exceeds Expectations.
The People Function notes it stands by this.¹³
Competency 7: Wellbeing & Self-Care Rating: Exceeds Expectations
[Note: Competency 7 was added to ICCF v4.1 in Month 6 following the Imperial Wellbeing Strategy launch. It is the first year this competency has been assessed.]
Lord Vader maintains a consistent physical and operational routine. The life-support infrastructure of the suit ensures that baseline physiological functions are maintained at all times. The People Function notes this is a form of continuous self-care delivery, albeit automated and non-optional.
The People Function notes the ablutionary provisions associated with the suit were the subject of a separate Facilities & Estates investigation under DS-FAC-PIR-0077.
The People Function notes DS-FAC-PIR-0077 is restricted.
The People Function notes it has read DS-FAC-PIR-0077.
The People Function notes it wishes it had not read DS-FAC-PIR-0077.
The People Function is rating this Exceeds Expectations and moving on.¹⁴
PART THREE: OVERALL RATING
Overall Rating: Exceeds Expectations
The People Function notes this rating reflects Lord Vader's consistent delivery against all seven Imperial Core Competencies as assessed above.
The People Function notes this rating was not a difficult decision.
The People Function notes the decision took approximately four seconds.
The People Function notes four seconds is unusually fast for an overall rating determination on a senior leader review.
The People Function notes the four seconds included the time taken to open the rating dropdown.
The People Function is satisfied with the rigour of this process.¹⁵
PART FOUR: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Minimum one objective required. Objectives must be SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound.
Development Objective 1: Strategic Delegation
Description: Lord Vader is invited to identify opportunities to delegate tactical decisions to direct reports, freeing capacity for strategic priorities and reducing single-point-of-failure risk in operational command.
Why this objective: The People Function notes that Lord Vader is personally involved in a volume of operational decisions that creates organisational dependency on his direct availability. The People Function notes this is a succession risk. The People Function notes it is raising this as a development opportunity rather than a structural concern because raising it as a structural concern would require a different form and the People Function does not want to complete a different form.
Measurable outcome: At least three operational decisions per quarter delegated to a direct report, with outcomes reviewed at the following quarter's check-in.
Target date: End of 3 ABY.
Lord Vader's response to this objective: Lord Vader stated that delegation implies the existence of someone competent to delegate to and that he had not yet identified such a person. Lord Vader noted Admiral Piett was "adequate." The People Function has recorded "adequate" as endorsement for the delegation objective. Lord Vader did not contest this.*
People Function confidence in achievement: The People Function notes it is not going to answer this question in writing.¹⁶
Development Objective 2: Stakeholder Feedback Engagement
Description: Lord Vader is invited to solicit informal feedback from lateral stakeholders — peers, adjacent function leads, and direct reports — on a semi-annual basis, using the Imperial 360 Feedback Tool (DS-HR-360-001).
Why this objective: The Imperial 360 Feedback Tool was launched in Month 4. Participation across the senior leadership cohort is at 34%. Lord Vader has not participated. The People Function notes participation is not currently mandatory. The People Function notes it is framing participation as a development opportunity. The People Function notes it is doing this carefully.
People Function note on 360 completion rates for Lord Vader: The People Function pre-launched the 360 collection for Lord Vader's stakeholder group in Month 7 as a pilot. Forty-seven stakeholders were invited to submit feedback. The response rate was 0%. The People Function followed up with a reminder. The response rate remained 0%. The People Function followed up with a second reminder. Three responses were received. All three said Lord Vader "met expectations" across all dimensions. All three responses were submitted within four minutes of each other. All three were submitted from the same terminal. The People Function has not investigated further. The People Function notes the 360 data is therefore limited and has not been included in this review. The People Function notes it is including this footnote.¹⁷
PART FIVE: REVIEWING OFFICER DECLARATION
I confirm that this review has been conducted in accordance with DS-HR-PROC-APR-001, that ratings are evidence-based, that development objectives are SMART, and that the employee has been given the opportunity to contribute to and respond to the content of this review.
Reviewing Officer: Senior People Partner Maren Quellis, Grade P-6 Signature: [Signed] Date: Day 14, Month 3, 3 ABY
Additional statement from reviewing officer:
The People Function would like to note for the record that this review was conducted professionally, impartially, and in accordance with all applicable policy. The People Function would like to note that Senior People Partner Quellis prepared extensively for the review meeting, reviewed all available documentation, and entered the meeting with a structured agenda and a list of evidence-based talking points. The People Function would like to note that the meeting lasted nine minutes. The People Function would like to note that all seven competency areas were covered in those nine minutes. The People Function would like to note that this represents an average of seventy-seven seconds per competency. The People Function would like to note it considers this sufficient.
The People Function would like to note that Senior People Partner Quellis has submitted a request for annual leave commencing Day 15, Month 3.
The People Function would like to note the request has been approved.
The People Function would like to note this was also approved very quickly.¹⁸
PART SIX: LINE MANAGER COUNTERSIGNATURE
The line manager is invited to review the completed APR, add any observations, and countersign to confirm accuracy.
Line Manager: The Emperor (Sheev Palpatine) Date of countersignature: Day 19, Month 3, 3 ABY — five days after submission, which is within the standard countersignature window of ten working days, which the People Function notes is the first time a countersignature has been received within the standard window this review cycle, and which the People Function attributes to the subject of the review rather than to a general improvement in countersignature compliance¹⁹
Line Manager Observations:
The Emperor has provided the following observations using the Imperial Leadership Commentary Framework (ILCF v2.0), which the Emperor requested be made available for this review and which the People Function produced, formatted, and delivered within twenty-four hours of the request, which is also a first:
On Overall Performance:
Lord Vader's performance during the review period has been, on balance, satisfactory. The Emperor notes the word "satisfactory" is being used in the Imperial technical sense, which connotes alignment with the Emperor's strategic intent, and not in the colloquial sense, which would imply mediocrity. The Emperor notes this distinction is important. The Emperor notes it should be recorded.
The Emperor notes that the destruction of Alderaan was authorised, executed, and effective. The Emperor notes effectiveness is the primary metric. The Emperor notes the subsequent loss of the station was not authorised and was not effective and that these two facts exist in tension with the overall Exceeds Expectations rating and that the Emperor is prepared to hold that tension because the alternative ratings available are not ones the Emperor wishes to endorse given what they would imply about the quality of the Emperor's own hiring decisions.
The Emperor notes this reasoning has been shared with the People Function in confidence.
The Emperor notes the People Function has included it in this document.
The Emperor notes the People Function has correctly identified that this document is restricted.
The Emperor notes the People Function is correct.
The Emperor is choosing to move on.²⁰
On People Leadership:
The Emperor notes Lord Vader's approach to people leadership reflects a philosophy the Emperor broadly endorses, which is that performance is non-negotiable, consequences are immediate, and the organisation is stronger for the clarity this provides. The Emperor notes that clarity is a form of kindness. The Emperor notes this is a genuine belief and not a rationalisation. The Emperor notes it is perhaps also a rationalisation. The Emperor notes both things can be true. The Emperor notes this is getting philosophical for a performance review and is returning to the framework.
Under ILCF v2.0, People Leadership is assessed against three sub-dimensions: Vision Setting, Team Development, and Psychological Safety. The Emperor notes Lord Vader scores highly on Vision Setting. The Emperor notes Team Development is ongoing in the sense that the team continues to develop new members at a rate that suggests the pipeline is functioning. The Emperor notes Psychological Safety is a dimension the Emperor added to ILCF v2.0 personally after attending a leadership development session on Coruscant in Month 2, which the Emperor found "not without interest," and which the Emperor notes Lord Vader did not attend because Lord Vader does not attend things. The Emperor notes Lord Vader's Psychological Safety score is recorded as N/A. The Emperor notes N/A is not a rating. The Emperor notes it is the rating Lord Vader has received. The Emperor notes the framework will be updated.²¹
On Development Objectives:
The Emperor endorses the strategic delegation objective in principle. The Emperor notes that delegation requires trust and that trust requires evidence of competence and that Lord Vader's threshold for evidence of competence is high and that this is not a deficiency but a standard and that the standard is correct. The Emperor notes that Admiral Piett is "adequate" and that "adequate" from Lord Vader is equivalent to "exceptional" from any other rater on the senior leadership team and that Admiral Piett should be informed of this.
The Emperor notes Admiral Piett should be informed carefully.
The Emperor notes Admiral Piett should perhaps not be told the precise framing.
The Emperor notes the People Function should use its judgment.
The Emperor notes this is the first time the Emperor has deferred to the People Function's judgment on anything.
The Emperor notes this should not be taken as precedent.²²
On the 360 Feedback Situation:
The Emperor is aware of the 360 feedback pilot. The Emperor is aware of the 0% initial response rate. The Emperor is aware of the three responses submitted from the same terminal within four minutes. The Emperor knows who submitted those responses. The Emperor is not going to say who submitted those responses. The Emperor notes those individuals acted out of loyalty and a clear-eyed assessment of the available options and that this reflects well on their judgment. The Emperor notes that good judgment should be rewarded. The Emperor has rewarded it. The Emperor notes it in this review because the People Function asked for specific examples of stakeholder management and the Emperor considers this one.²³
On the Overall Rating of Exceeds Expectations:
The Emperor endorses the overall rating. The Emperor notes the overall rating is correct. The Emperor notes it is correct in the way that a thing is correct when the only other options are worse. The Emperor notes this is still correct. The Emperor notes correctness does not require enthusiasm. The Emperor notes the rating stands.
The Emperor notes one thing further. The Emperor notes that Lord Vader's performance, assessed against any reasonable framework, is extraordinary. The Emperor notes that the word "Exceeds" does not capture what Lord Vader exceeds, which is not expectations but the capacity of the framework to measure the thing it is attempting to measure. The Emperor notes the framework is ICCF v4.1. The Emperor notes ICCF v4.1 was designed for a workforce whose members do not have the Force. The Emperor notes using ICCF v4.1 to assess Lord Vader is like using a standard tape measure to assess the depth of space and finding space wanting for not fitting. The Emperor notes it is not space that is the problem. The Emperor notes it is the tape measure.
The Emperor notes it has said this to the People Function before.
The Emperor notes the People Function has noted it.
The Emperor notes the framework has not been updated.
The Emperor notes this is a governance failure.
The Emperor notes it is, perhaps, the only governance failure in this document.
The Emperor notes this with the specific exhaustion of someone who has read every other document in this series.²⁴
Line Manager Signature: [A mark that is not a signature in any standard sense. It is not a symbol from any known alphabet. It is not illegible — it is clearly deliberate. It is simply a thing that the Emperor has written and that the People Function has accepted as a countersignature because the People Function is not going to ask the Emperor to redo it.]*²⁵
PART SEVEN: EMPLOYEE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The employee is invited to sign this section to confirm they have read and understood the content of this review. Signature does not indicate agreement with ratings or comments — only receipt.
Employee signature: [BLANK]
Reason signature not obtained: Lord Vader declined to sign.
Lord Vader was advised that signature does not indicate agreement, only receipt.
Lord Vader said he was aware of this.
Lord Vader said he was declining anyway.
Lord Vader said the review did not capture the full scope of his contribution.
The People Function asked Lord Vader to elaborate.
Lord Vader elaborated for four minutes.
The People Function noted this was the longest Lord Vader had spoken during any part of the review process including the review meeting itself.
The People Function has summarised Lord Vader's elaboration as follows: the competency framework does not contain a category for the Force, the Force is his primary tool and primary differentiator, a review that does not assess his use of the Force is a review that has not assessed him, and a review that has not assessed him is a review he declines to sign.
The People Function noted that ICCF v4.1 does not currently include a Force competency.
Lord Vader said he was aware of this.
Lord Vader said this was the problem.
Lord Vader left.
The People Function has logged the signature field as "declined — subject present, content received, signature withheld."
The People Function has submitted the review without the signature.
The People Function notes this is permitted under DS-HR-PROC-APR-001 Section 7.4.
The People Function notes Section 7.4 was added in the most recent revision of DS-HR-PROC-APR-001.
The People Function notes the most recent revision was Month 8 of this review cycle.
The People Function notes the People Function wrote Section 7.4.
The People Function notes the People Function wrote it in Month 7.
The People Function notes it takes approximately one month for a policy revision to be approved.
The People Function notes it is not going to explain what happened in Month 7 that caused it to draft Section 7.4.
The People Function notes the People Function notes a lot of things.
The People Function is done now.²⁶
This review is complete. Rating: Exceeds Expectations. Signature: Not obtained. Development plan: Documented. Emperor: Satisfied, provisionally. People Function: Finished. Dave: The CMDB. Lord Vader is listed as "Active — Pending Offboarding Review" from a data migration in Month 4. This is incorrect on multiple levels. Please update. Dave has been notified. Dave knows. Dave will get to it. The review is complete. The review has always been complete. Exceeds Expectations. The document is closed.
FOOTNOTES
¹ Employee number IMP-00001 was assigned at onboarding. The onboarding form lists Lord Vader's previous employer as "The Jedi Order (former)" and his reason for leaving as "mutual agreement — see separate documentation." The separate documentation is classified above the level of anyone in the People Function. The People Function has not read it. The People Function notes the onboarding form also has a field for emergency contact. The field is blank. The People Function has never raised this. The People Function is not going to raise it now.
² The grading framework review has been ongoing since Month 3. The People Function convened a working group. The working group met four times. The working group could not agree on a grade. The working group considered creating a new grade above Grade 22. The working group considered what to call it. The working group could not agree on a name. The working group's fourth meeting was attended by two of the original five members. The other three had transferred, retired, and in one case simply stopped coming to work, which the People Function notes is not an approved exit route but which has been processed as a voluntary resignation because the People Function needed to close the headcount. The grade field remains blank. The working group has been stood down. A new working group will be convened. The People Function notes this with the energy of an organisation that has convened many working groups.
³ The motivation referenced here is not documented in this footnote. The motivation is documented in the memories of Senior People Partner Quellis, who has taken annual leave, and in the nine-minute recording of the review meeting, which is stored on a server that the People Function has decided not to access again. The People Function notes the server is accessible. The People Function notes it is choosing not to access it. The People Function notes this is a choice it is at peace with.
⁴ The Employee Assistance Programme voicemail has been full since Month 6. The People Function has raised this seven times. The EAP provider has acknowledged the issue five times. The EAP provider has resolved it zero times. The People Function notes that an Employee Assistance Programme with a full voicemail is a specific kind of institutional metaphor that it does not have the bandwidth to unpack in a performance review footnote. The People Function is logging it as an open action. The open action will join the 312 other open actions. Dave is not responsible for this one. The People Function notes this for Dave's sake.
⁵ The 79-word response is the longest self-assessment the People Function has received from any senior leader this review cycle. The average senior leader self-assessment is 347 words. The People Function notes that 79 words covering the destruction of a planet, a sustained cross-theatre pursuit operation, an interrogation programme, and a fleet is a level of economy that the People Function's communication training materials describe as a target state. The People Function notes it did not expect the benchmark for concise professional communication to be Lord Vader. The People Function notes it is updating the training materials.
⁶ "Strategic delegation" was selected as a development area after the People Function reviewed a list of seventeen candidate areas and eliminated sixteen on the grounds that raising them would require a follow-up conversation. Strategic delegation was the seventeenth. Strategic delegation was selected because it implies Lord Vader currently does things himself, which is true, and that doing fewer of them would benefit the organisation, which is also true, and that this framing could conceivably be received as a compliment. The People Function is not confident it will be received as a compliment. The People Function has documented it and is moving on.
⁷ The People Function spent forty minutes on the response "The chain of command respects me." The People Function convened an informal discussion. The informal discussion considered whether this was accurate, whether it was defensible, whether it was the kind of statement that could appear in an official document without generating an inquiry, and whether an inquiry would be worse than not generating one. The People Function concluded all of the above were true and that the last question had no good answer and moved on. The People Function notes "The chain of command respects me" is factually accurate. The People Function notes it is accurate in the way that "the ocean is wet" is accurate, which is to say entirely and without useful additional information.
⁸ The People Function reviewed forty-seven communications issued by Lord Vader during the review period for the purposes of assessing this competency. All forty-seven were clear. All forty-seven were direct. All forty-seven were retained by recipients. The People Function notes that forty-three of the forty-seven were retained by the original recipient. The People Function notes that four were retained by the replacement for the original recipient, who was not the original recipient because the original recipient was no longer available. The People Function notes this is a retention rate of 100% if you define retention correctly. The People Function has defined it correctly.
⁹ The reversibility submission referenced here is DS-HR-ICCF-REVIEW-003, submitted Month 4 of last year. DS-HR-ICCF-REVIEW-001 and DS-HR-ICCF-REVIEW-002 were submitted in the two preceding years. All three recommended adding reversibility as a sub-dimension of Decision Making. All three were reviewed by the ICCF Governance Board. The ICCF Governance Board meets annually. The ICCF Governance Board has fifteen members. Quorum is eight. The last three meetings achieved quorum of six, five, and four respectively. The People Function notes the declining quorum trend. The People Function notes this is a governance concern. The People Function notes the governance concern has been raised with the ICCF Governance Board. The People Function notes this is the kind of sentence that sounds like a solution and is not.
¹⁰ Admiral Piett's tenure of [REDACTED] months is not redacted for security reasons. It is redacted because the People Function updates this document periodically and has decided not to commit to a specific number that may require updating. The People Function notes this is the first editorial decision it has made in this document. The People Function notes it is a practical one. The People Function hopes Admiral Piett continues to make it impractical by remaining in post. The People Function notes this is the warmest thing it has said about anyone in the entire document chain. The People Function notes it means it.
¹¹ The methodology of rating transfer requests that were not granted as a stakeholder management outcome was reviewed by the People Function's Quality Assurance lead. The QA lead approved it. The QA lead is Senior People Partner Quellis. Senior People Partner Quellis reviewed her own methodology. Senior People Partner Quellis approved it. The People Function notes this is a governance gap. The People Function notes it is a governance gap it created. The People Function notes it is not going to raise it with the ICCF Governance Board because the ICCF Governance Board cannot achieve quorum.
¹² The forty minutes between the review meeting and the rating amendment are not documented in any formal record. They are documented in Senior People Partner Quellis's personal notes, which are stored somewhere that is not the People Function's filing system and which will not be disclosed under the Imperial Freedom of Information Act because Senior People Partner Quellis has reviewed the IFOI exemptions and has identified three that apply and one that she is less certain about but is claiming anyway. The People Function notes the rating is Exceeds Expectations. The People Function notes it is final. The People Function notes it was always going to be final.
¹³ Eleven days. The People Function considered Partially Meets for eleven days. On day eight, the People Function drafted a Partially Meets justification that ran to four pages and was technically sound. On day nine, the People Function read it back. On day ten, the People Function revised it. On day eleven, the People Function deleted it and rated the competency Exceeds Expectations. The People Function notes the four pages are gone. The People Function notes it remembers what they said. The People Function notes it is not going to say what they said. The People Function notes the rating is Exceeds Expectations and that the People Function stands by it and that standing by it is easier than the alternative.
¹⁴ DS-FAC-PIR-0077 was read by the People Function in Month 9. The People Function read it because the People Function reads all restricted documents that reference People Function subjects as a standard due-diligence step. The People Function notes this was not a standard due-diligence step it had performed before. The People Function notes it implemented this step specifically to read DS-FAC-PIR-0077. The People Function notes it regrets this decision. The People Function notes the Wellbeing & Self-Care rating is Exceeds Expectations. The People Function notes it is moving on from DS-FAC-PIR-0077. The People Function notes it has been trying to move on from DS-FAC-PIR-0077 since Month 9. The People Function notes Month 9 was a long time ago. The People Function notes some things take time.
¹⁵ The four seconds included: one second to open the dropdown, one second to read the options, one second to select Exceeds Expectations, and one second during which the People Function sat very still and then continued. The People Function notes that the one second of sitting very still was not indecision. The People Function notes it was a form of acknowledgement. The People Function notes it is the closest thing to a moment of silence this document contains. The People Function notes that a moment of silence for the alternative ratings seemed appropriate. The People Function notes it is done now.
¹⁶ The People Function's confidence in achievement of the strategic delegation objective has been assessed internally as low. The internal assessment used a five-point confidence scale. The scale goes from Very Low to Very High. The People Function rated it Very Low and then amended it to Low because Very Low requires a mandatory escalation conversation with the line manager and the People Function was not going to have a mandatory escalation conversation with the Emperor about Lord Vader's delegation habits. Low does not require escalation. Low requires a check-in at six months. The People Function notes it will conduct the six-month check-in. The People Function notes it will conduct it by email.
¹⁷ The three responses submitted from the same terminal were submitted by [REDACTED], [REDACTED], and [REDACTED]. The terminal is registered to [REDACTED]. The People Function knows whose terminal it is. The People Function conducted a brief investigation. The People Function concluded its investigation in the same meeting in which it began it. The People Function closed the investigation as "no further action — data noted — 360 results not included in review." The People Function notes the three individuals submitted ratings of "Meets Expectations" across all dimensions rather than "Exceeds Expectations," which the People Function notes suggests a level of independence that, under the circumstances, the People Function considers remarkable and also somewhat brave.
¹⁸ Senior People Partner Quellis's annual leave covers fourteen days, takes her off-station, and was booked at 1623 on Day 14, Month 3 — nine minutes after the review was submitted. The People Function notes the booking was made before the leave request was formally approved. The People Function notes the leave request was approved at 1631, eight minutes after being submitted, by the Facilities Director, who does not normally approve People Function leave. The People Function notes the Facilities Director approved it because the Head of People was unavailable. The People Function notes the Head of People became unavailable at 1619. The People Function notes it is not going to document why the Head of People became unavailable at 1619. The People Function notes Quellis has a good time on her leave. The People Function means this.
¹⁹ The countersignature window compliance rate for this review cycle is 23%. The Emperor's countersignature arrived on Day 19, within the standard ten-working-day window, making it one of 23% of reviews countersigned on time. The People Function notes this is the first time in three review cycles that the Emperor has countersigned within the window. The People Function notes it has not sent the Emperor a reminder. The People Function notes the Emperor does not receive reminders. The People Function notes the Emperor apparently reads performance reviews in his own time and at his own pace and that his own pace for this review was five days, which the People Function notes is faster than most Grade 12 managers, which the People Function notes says something and is not going to elaborate on what.
²⁰ The tension the Emperor describes — between the loss of the station and the Exceeds Expectations rating — was the subject of an internal People Function discussion that lasted three hours. The discussion concluded that the loss of the station was an organisational outcome rather than an individual performance indicator and that individual performance reviews assess behaviours and competencies rather than station survival rates and that this framing was both technically correct and operationally convenient and that both things being true simultaneously was the outcome the People Function needed. The People Function notes it used the phrase "operationally convenient" in the internal discussion and then removed it from all written records of the discussion except this footnote, which is in a restricted document, and which the People Function notes is fine.
²¹ The leadership development session the Emperor attended on Coruscant in Month 2 was titled "Servant Leadership in Complex Organisations." It was a full-day programme. The Emperor attended the morning session. The Emperor left at lunch. The Emperor described the morning as "not without interest," which the facilitator's feedback form records as the most positive response the Emperor gave, and which is rated against a five-point scale where "not without interest" maps to approximately 2.5. The facilitator submitted the Emperor's feedback form. The facilitator noted in the comments field that the Emperor had engaged actively with the morning's content and asked several questions that the facilitator described as "penetrating, unanswerable, and delivered in a tone I have not encountered before and do not wish to encounter again." The facilitator did not run a second session on Coruscant. The facilitator has moved to Lothal. The panel notes Lothal is where Jon Darvish has tomatoes. The panel notes Lothal is having a moment.
²² Admiral Piett has not been told he was cited in the Emperor's performance review commentary as the benchmark for "adequate." Admiral Piett has not been told this because the People Function reviewed the Emperor's commentary and concluded that delivering this information to Admiral Piett would require a level of contextualisation that the People Function was not equipped to provide. The People Function drafted three versions of the message. The first was too alarming. The second was too reassuring in a way that would raise questions. The third was accurate and the People Function decided accurate was worse than either alarming or reassuring. The People Function has not delivered the message. The People Function notes Admiral Piett continues to perform his duties. The People Function notes this is the outcome and that the outcome is sufficient.
²³ The Emperor knows who submitted the three 360 responses. The People Function knows the Emperor knows. The Emperor knows the People Function knows the Emperor knows. The People Function knows the Emperor knows this. Nobody has said any of this to anyone else because the appropriate response to everyone knowing everything is occasionally to write it in a footnote of a restricted document and then file it and not speak of it again. The People Function notes this is what it is doing. The People Function notes it is the correct approach. The People Function notes it has learned this from eleven documents in this series and that the learning curve has been significant and that it would have preferred to learn it differently.
²⁴ The Emperor's tape-measure observation was delivered verbally during the countersignature process, which the People Function attended remotely via hologram, which the People Function requested specifically so it could mute itself if required, which it did require, on two occasions, both during the tape-measure section. The People Function notes the Emperor is not wrong. The People Function notes ICCF v4.1 was not designed for this. The People Function notes it has submitted four framework review requests. The People Function notes none have been actioned. The People Function notes this is because the ICCF Governance Board cannot achieve quorum. The People Function notes the ICCF Governance Board cannot achieve quorum because three of its fifteen members are no longer in post. The People Function notes why they are no longer in post. The People Function notes the framework has therefore not been updated because of the framework's own subject matter. The People Function notes this is the most complete thing it has said in any document in this series. The People Function is going to stop here.
²⁵ The mark the Emperor made in the signature field has been reviewed by the People Function's Document Standards team. The Document Standards team confirmed it is not a standard Imperial signature format. The Document Standards team confirmed it is not from any recognised symbol system in the Imperial archive. The Document Standards team sent it to the Imperial Library for identification. The Imperial Library said it appeared to be a glyph from a very old tradition and that they would need more time to identify it. The Imperial Library has not followed up. The People Function has not followed up with the Imperial Library. The People Function has accepted the mark as a countersignature. The People Function notes that accepting an unidentified ancient glyph as a binding countersignature on a performance review is technically a policy gap. The People Function notes it is the kind of policy gap you do not close.
²⁶ Section 7.4 of DS-HR-PROC-APR-001 reads: "Where an employee declines to sign the acknowledgement section having been informed that signature denotes receipt rather than agreement, the reviewing officer may submit the review as complete with a note documenting the employee's presence, their receipt of the content, and their reason for withholding signature, if provided." Section 7.4 was drafted in Month 7. Section 7.4 was approved in Month 8. The review meeting was in Month 3 of the following year. The People Function notes it drafted Section 7.4 eight months before the review meeting in which it was needed. The People Function notes this is either very good policy planning or something else. The People Function notes it was something else. The People Function notes it planned ahead. The People Function notes planning ahead is a competency not currently rated in ICCF v4.1. The People Function notes it would rate itself Exceeds Expectations. The People Function notes nobody asked. The People Function notes the document is closed. The People Function notes it is closed. The People Function. Closed. Done.
Threat intelligence every morning — new victims, new groups, what matters, in plain English. Free, with receipts.
Subscribe to the Daily →