Methodology
How the Grow Score™ is built - and how it is refused
Everything below is published because a standard that cannot be inspected is only a logo. Weightings are fixed before an assessment starts and never negotiated.
Evidence over marketing.
Development
How the Standard was developed
Each stage below carries its real status. A stage that has not been completed is never presented as if it had been.
- 01
Literature review
CompletedReview of research in learning sciences, employability, internal mobility, organizational development, management and the sociology of work.
- 02
Expert consultation
In progressInput from practitioners, researchers, employees and organizational leaders on what a growth environment concretely looks like.
- 03
Indicator design
CompletedTranslation of research concepts into observable workplace conditions: 73 indicators across 8 pillars.
- 04
Survey design
CompletedEmployee questions designed to measure lived growth conditions, with embedded integrity controls.
- 05
Evidence framework
CompletedDefinition of the organizational proof required for each criterion, and of what may never be accepted as proof.
- 06
Pilot and calibration
PlannedPilot assessments will test reliability, threshold discrimination and indicator behaviour across sectors and population types.
- 07
Independent review
PlannedThe Standard will be reviewed through an independent governance process before the first certification cycle closes.
- 08
Continuous revision
In progressThe Standard is versioned and revised as evidence accumulates. Every change is published with its rationale.
Source weighting
Four sources, fixed weights
40%
Employee Experience
Anonymous employee survey run by BPTG, never administered or filtered by the organization.
30%
Evidence
Documented policies, systems and artefacts verified criterion by criterion in the Evidence Room™.
20%
Outcomes
Hard organizational data: internal mobility, internal hiring, promotion, reskilling, skill application.
10%
Alumni
People who already left. The only source that can tell whether the growth held its value afterwards.
Why these weights?
| Source | Weight | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Employee Experience | 40% | Because a growth environment ultimately exists in people's lived experience. Nothing an organization declares outranks what its people actually experienced. |
| Evidence | 30% | Because policies, systems and artefacts establish whether growth conditions are structurally supported rather than dependent on one good manager. |
| Outcomes | 20% | Because real development must produce observable results: mobility, promotion, reskilling, skills actually applied. |
| Alumni | 10% | Because former employees hold a perspective unavailable to current employees and to employers: whether the growth kept its value afterwards. |
Pillar weights follow the same logic. Learning & Skills, Feedback & Development, Career & Mobility and Growth Leadership™ carry 15% each because they describe the mechanisms that produce growth. Autonomy & Responsibility, Opportunity & Exposure, Inclusive Growth and Employability & Future carry 10% each because they describe the conditions and consequences of that growth. The eight weights total 100 and are fixed before an assessment opens.
These weightings represent the initial design of the model. They will be empirically reviewed as assessment data grows, and any revision will be published as a versioned change to the Standard.
Pillar weighting
| Pillar | Weight | Question it answers |
|---|---|---|
| Learning & Skills | 15% | Do people acquire real, verifiable skills here? |
| Feedback & Development | 15% | Do people receive feedback that actually changes their trajectory? |
| Career & Mobility | 15% | Can people move, progress and change direction inside the organization? |
| Growth Leadership™ | 15% | Do managers create growth, or absorb it? |
| Autonomy & Responsibility | 10% | Are people trusted with more over time? |
| Opportunity & Exposure | 10% | Do people get access to the situations that make them stronger? |
| Inclusive Growth | 10% | Does everyone grow, or only a shortlist? |
| Employability & Future | 10% | Would leaving tomorrow leave people stronger? |
Thresholds and calibration
Four numbers decide whether an assessment can result in certification
≥ 70
Overall Grow Score™
≥ 60
Employee Experience
≥ 55
Growth Leadership™
≥ 55
Inclusive Growth
Initial calibration
The thresholds published in v1.0 are the initial calibration of the Standard. They express the level at which the model considers a growth environment demonstrably present rather than aspirational.
Empirically reviewed
Pilot assessments will test whether each threshold discriminates meaningfully. Thresholds may be raised, lowered or re-expressed - always through a versioned change, never case by case.
The rulebook cannot change during the game
The version of the Standard in force at the opening of an assessment governs that assessment to its end. A threshold is never adjusted for, against or during an organization's cycle.
Published before they are applied
Any change to a threshold is published with its rationale, its version number and its effective date before a single assessment uses it.
Rules
The rules that decide a certification
Aggregation
Grow Score™
Each pillar is scored 0–100 from the four sources, then weighted into a single 0–100 Grow Score™. The score is a summary of a growth environment - never a marketing claim, and never sufficient on its own.
A good average must never compensate for the failure of a hard gate. Every gate is binary and independently assessed.
Binary conditions
Hard gates
| Hard gate | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Overall Grow Score™ | ≥ 70 |
| Employee Experience | ≥ 60 |
| Growth Leadership™ | ≥ 55 |
| Inclusive Growth | ≥ 55 |
| Survey Integrity | PASS |
| Evidence Integrity | PASS |
| Sustainable Growth | PASS |
| Critical populations | None below methodology threshold |
Missing data
Alumni insufficient-data redistribution
When alumni participation falls below the methodological threshold, the platform states it publicly and redistributes the 10% according to a fixed rule - Employee Experience 45%, Evidence 33%, Outcomes 22% - instead of automatically penalising the organization. Insufficient data is never treated as a bad result, and never as a good one.
ATLAS RETAIL is the live example in the register: alumni participation fell below the threshold, the 10% was redistributed under the fixed rule, and the gap is published on the profile instead of being hidden or penalised.
Integrity
Survey integrity
The survey is administered by BPTG, never by the organization. Three control questions are embedded in every questionnaire:
- I felt free to answer this survey honestly.
- I received instructions about how to answer this survey.
- I fear professional consequences because of my answers.
Straight-lining, duplicate submissions and abnormal response patterns are detected and excluded. Credible pressure signals raise an integrity flag and can exclude an entire population from scoring, or terminate the assessment.
Integrity
Evidence integrity
Evidence is verified, not declared. Every criterion is traced to a document, a system export or a measured outcome, with version and upload metadata. Modified or retro-dated artefacts trigger a Critical flag: the process is terminated and a 24-month exclusion may apply.
Population
Representativity
The certified scope is mapped by site, department, job family, management level, tenure band, contract type and country before the survey opens. A population that responds below its representativity threshold triggers an alert; a critical population below threshold fails a hard gate.
Reporting
Minimum reporting thresholds
Segments with fewer than 8 respondents are never reported. Cross-segment breakdowns are suppressed where a combination could identify an individual.
Privacy
Privacy by construction
Individual answers are never accessible to the employer - not aggregated late, not filtered, not exportable. Open-text answers are only released in aggregate and de-identified form. The organization receives insight; it never receives people.
Gate
Sustainable Growth
Growth extracted from people's health, personal life or long-term capacity is not growth. Sustainable Growth is assessed separately, scored, and applied as a binary gate since Standard v1.0.
Methodological crash test
STRATEX CONSULTING: Grow Score™ 72, certification refused.
The clearest proof that the standard works is a refusal that could easily have been a certification: 4 hard gates failed, so the score never mattered.
| Gate | Result | Requirement | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Grow Score™ | 72 | ≥ 70 | PASS |
| Employee Experience | 67 | ≥ 60 | PASS |
| Growth Leadership™ | 49 | ≥ 55 | FAIL |
| Inclusive Growth | 52 | ≥ 55 | FAIL |
| Survey Integrity | PASS | PASS | PASS |
| Evidence Integrity | PASS | PASS | PASS |
| Sustainable Growth | 46 - FAIL | PASS | FAIL |
| Critical populations | Consultants < 3 yrs below threshold | None below threshold | FAIL |
Independence
Organizations pay to be assessed. They never pay to be certified.
Same price whatever the outcome
The assessment fee is fixed before the first data point is collected. A refusal costs exactly what a certification costs.
Commercial team ≠ auditors
No one who sold the assessment can review evidence, score a pillar or vote on a decision.
Advisory ≠ certification
Advisory work is separated organizationally and contractually. An adviser cannot audit their own client.
Evidence is verified, not declared
Every one of the 73 indicators is traced to a document, a system export or a measured outcome.
Certification can be refused, suspended, withdrawn
It has happened, it will happen again, and the transparency report publishes the numbers.
Rankings cannot be purchased
No sponsored placement, no paid position in a Grow Index™, no negotiated score.
Demonstration environment - all organizations, scores, cases and flags shown are fictional and exist to demonstrate the methodology end to end.