WeMatter Workshop and Alignment

How the WeMatter workshop opens, what is editable, how agreement works, and why some scorecards are already complete when the workshop begins.

Overview

The WeMatter stage is the shared workshop part of the scorecard cycle. It only opens once both iMatter and uMatter have been submitted.

By that point, the scorecard already contains two things: the participant's own view and the reviewer view. The workshop is there to deal with what still needs shared judgement, not to repeat everything from the start.

That is the key to reading WeMatter well. It is an alignment step, not a second full review.

When WeMatter becomes available

WeMatter becomes available when both earlier stages are submitted:

iMatter must be submitted
uMatter must be submitted

Until then, WeMatter stays locked because the workshop is meant to compare two completed inputs, not one complete response and one partial draft.

Facilitated workshops can stay intentionally gated

If uMatter visibility is set to after the workshop, the participant may be blocked from opening both the reviewer response and the WeMatter page on their own. In that case, the scorecard is designed for a facilitated in-person or live session led by reviewing managers or WeMatter leads.

What alignment actually means here

Alignment in WeMatter does not mean everything gets discussed again.

The platform compares the iMatter and uMatter ratings competency by competency. Where the two sides already match, that rating is treated as effectively agreed and is carried straight through into WeMatter.

Where the two sides differ, or where one side rated something and the other did not, WeMatter asks for an agreed workshop rating.

That means WeMatter is focused on unresolved judgement rather than already-settled ground.

Why agreed ratings are already locked in

Sometimes people expect the workshop stage to require a fresh pass through the whole scorecard. In the live product, that is not how it works.

Where iMatter and uMatter already agree on a competency rating, that rating is carried into WeMatter as already agreed. The workshop does not ask people to re-rate those competencies again.

That keeps the session focused on the areas that still need discussion: the competencies where ratings differ, where one side has not rated yet, or where the conversation behind the score needs clarifying.

In some cases, that can mean WeMatter progress opens at 100% immediately. But the more important point is the workflow logic itself: existing agreement is preserved, and the workshop is there to resolve what is still unresolved.

What is editable in WeMatter

The workshop keeps a clear boundary between what is carried in from earlier stages and what can still be changed.

Performance ratings

For each competency:

matching iMatter and uMatter ratings are auto-carried into WeMatter
differing or missing ratings need an agreed WeMatter rating
once submitted, those workshop agreements become read-only

This makes the workshop precise. It is there to close the gaps, not to reopen everything.

Human Performance Indicator comments

Within each Human Performance Indicator area, the workshop shows the earlier written comments from iMatter and uMatter as read-only context.

The workshop can then add its own WeMatter comment where that extra shared context is useful.

This is often the most helpful way to use the workshop comment layer. It lets people capture what was clarified, agreed, or reframed after discussing the two earlier views together.

Engagement areas

The workshop does not reopen the engagement-area ratings or comments. Those stay fixed from the earlier stage.

This matters because it keeps WeMatter focused on alignment rather than turning the workshop into a full re-scoring exercise.

Shared engagement statement

Although the engagement-area entries stay locked, WeMatter can still include a shared workshop engagement statement.

That gives the session somewhere to capture the overall engagement takeaway without rewriting each individual engagement area.

What the workshop conversation is usually for

The strongest WeMatter workshops do three things well:

surface the competencies where the two sides are seeing performance differently
test those differences against real examples, expectations, and evidence
leave the scorecard in a state where the final agreed picture is clear enough to support the next development step

In practice, that often means discussing questions such as:

what evidence is each person using for this rating?
is the gap about standards, visibility, confidence, or context?
what changed once both perspectives were heard together?

How the alignment view helps

Once both earlier stages exist, WeMatter can also generate an alignment view.

That view is designed to help people prepare for or interpret the workshop. It summarises:

where iMatter and uMatter are already aligned
where they are misaligned
what the workshop should focus on
the key questions most worth discussing

From the scorecard page, look for the Rating alignment action card. If the alignment view already exists, selecting that card opens the sheet immediately. If it has not been created yet, use Generate rating alignment first and then open it from the same place.

Inside the sheet, the navigation is split into two levels.

Summary

The written alignment readout, including alignment, misalignment, and workshop focus.

Performance

The detailed comparison view for rating differences across the scorecard.

Within the Performance view, a second tab row lets you switch between the scorecard's Skills and Behaviours perspectives.

So the alignment output is not a replacement for the conversation. It is a preparation and framing tool that helps the session get to the important part more quickly.

What happens when the workshop is submitted

Submitting WeMatter does more than close the workflow stage.

It also opens the scorecard's post-workshop outputs, including generated insights, PDF creation, and the prompt to move into goal creation.

That is why it is useful to treat the workshop as the point where the scorecard becomes a finished development record, not just a final administrative step.

If a workshop needs to be reopened

If something important needs correcting after submission, a permitted user can unsubmit the relevant stage.

When that happens, WeMatter should be treated as no longer final. Generated alignment and insight outputs may be cleared because they no longer match the reopened state of the scorecard.

If iMatter or uMatter is unsubmitted, the WeMatter submission is also no longer valid, because the workshop can no longer be treated as the final view of two settled inputs.