How to review and track an IDP

A review is a two-way check-in, not a status form and not a performance appraisal. The employee and the manager each mark every goal as on track, behind, or at risk, and add a short comment. The status is only the prompt. The value is the conversation it starts: what moved, what is blocked, and what to adjust next.

Keep the line between development and evaluation clear. A development review looks forward, asking whether the plan is working and what the next step is. A performance appraisal looks back and assigns a rating. When the two blur, people stop being honest about where they struggle, which is exactly the information a development plan depends on.

The monthly one-on-one is where the manager does most of this. Set aside ten to twenty minutes of it for the development plan specifically, and treat that part as coaching rather than status reporting. The manager opens by reviewing progress on each action: what got done, what stalled, and why. Because the development goal is already set in the IDP, the conversation works the other parts of the GROW model. The manager asks where the person is now with a concrete example (Reality), what they could try (Options), and what they will commit to next (Way forward). The point is to stop being the bottleneck rather than hand over answers, so the manager switches stance between mentoring, when real expertise is needed, and coaching, when the answer should come from the employee. Close with feedback grounded in facts and invited in both directions. Every session lands on clear next steps that the employee writes up, which keeps the plan moving and adjusting against the development goals instead of going quiet between reviews.

Reviews are the checkpoints. Between them, progress is tracked at the level of individual actions. Each action moves through three states: not started, in progress, and done. A simple count, like three of five complete, shows where the plan stands at a glance, and a flag goes up the moment a deadline slips.

Keep tracking lightweight so the plan stays a living document instead of a form that is filed and forgotten. Each 70/20/10 action carries its own owner and date, which is what separates a plan that drives growth from the built it, approved it, then silence pattern that kills most development plans.

This is also why a proactive system tends to beat a static spreadsheet. A spreadsheet waits to be opened. A system nudges the right person at the right time, rolls activity status up to HR, and keeps the plan visible to everyone who is supposed to act on it.

When the gap looks closed, re-assess to confirm it actually moved. When current proficiency meets or exceeds the target, the gap is closed. A plan then ends by being archived, not graduated. Common archive reasons are goals achieved, a new assessment cycle, or a role change that retires the competency. You can also stretch the goal to a higher proficiency, in which case the actions should be re-pointed at the new expectation.

Developing a competency is not the same as hitting a KPI. A KPI can be met in a month or a quarter. Moving from professional to expert can take years. So you might assess at year-end what has been demonstrated and how, while the IDP tied to that competency stays open. When it does, raise the level of the actions, expand autonomy, and adjust the depth of coaching and training. Archiving the plan and opening a fresh one works just as well. Both are valid.

One emphasis for talent and high-potential employees: measure the competency level objectively rather than by self-report. A 360 assessment gives a defensible read on proficiency progress, refreshes the person's readiness, and feeds the data used in people reviews until the gap to the current or future role is genuinely bridged.