CASE – behavioural objectives

Task objectives describe an output to deliver. Behavioural objectives describe what a person needs to do differently in observable terms. CASE helps a manager move from a vague judgement—such as “be more professional”—to a fair agreement about the relevant context, the required action, the applicable standard and the way progress will be evaluated.

When to use it

Use CASE after timely, direct feedback has not resolved an important behavioural concern, or when clarity and documentation are necessary from the outset. Appropriate situations include repeated lateness, avoidable interruptions, disrespectful communication, failure to follow an agreed process or another behaviour that the individual can reasonably change.

Do not use it to diagnose personality, punish someone for raising a concern, or impose a standard that has not been communicated consistently. Performance, conduct, disability, health and workplace-adjustment issues may require different processes; consult the relevant HR policy before creating a formal record.

Origins

CASE is a management-development mnemonic for converting a behavioural concern into an observable agreement: Context, Action, Standards and Evaluation. David Cotton presented the model in Key Management Development Models (twenty fifteen). Its logic belongs to the longer tradition of behavioural objectives associated with Ralph Tyler, Benjamin Bloom and Robert Mager. Educational models specify observable behaviour, the conditions under which it should occur and the criteria for acceptable performance; CASE adapts that discipline to a workplace conversation and adds explicit follow-up.

What it is

• Context: What happened, and what has the manager directly observed? The description should identify relevant occasions, effects and circumstances without assigning motives.
• Action: What will the individual do differently? The action should be within the person’s control and clear enough for both parties to recognise.
• Standards: Which role expectation, policy, team agreement or organisational value applies? The standard must be legitimate, relevant and consistently applied.
• Evaluation: How and when will progress be reviewed? This includes the evidence, review period, support available and next conversation.

CASE differs from a conventional SMART objective because it begins with evidence about behaviour and explicitly connects the required change to an established standard. It is not a disciplinary process by itself; it is a way to make a behavioural agreement precise.

How to use it

One. Check the facts and the process

Separate direct observations from assumptions, hearsay and interpretation. Confirm that the expectation was clear, that comparable situations are treated consistently and that the individual has had a reasonable opportunity to respond. If the matter may become formal, follow organisational policy and obtain HR guidance.

Two. Give direct feedback first

Describe the behaviour, explain its effect and invite the person’s perspective. The EEC model can help structure this conversation. Listen for missing context, unclear expectations, workload constraints, accessibility needs or other factors that may change the appropriate response.

Three. Write the CASE objective together

Use neutral, observable language. A shared first-person agreement often creates stronger ownership, provided it genuinely reflects the conversation. Avoid labels such as “negative,” “lazy” or “unprofessional” unless they are translated into specific actions.

For example, imagine a team member repeatedly takes unplanned breaks that leave a service desk uncovered:

• Context: “During four shifts in the past two weeks, I left the service desk outside scheduled breaks without arranging cover. On each occasion, incoming requests waited until another colleague noticed.”
• Action: “Before leaving the desk outside scheduled breaks, I will arrange cover with the shift lead, except in an emergency.”
• Standards: “The team rota requires continuous desk cover during service hours and provides two scheduled breaks plus a lunch period.”
• Evaluation: “For the next four weeks, the shift lead and I will review desk-cover records in our weekly one-to-one. We will discuss any obstacle to following the agreement and conduct a final review on the stated date.”

The example concerns service coverage, not the person’s reason for taking a break. In practice, the manager should consider health, disability, religious observance, pregnancy, caring responsibilities and other circumstances that may require confidentiality or reasonable adjustment.

Four. Agree support and consequences

Ask what support will make the change achievable. Clarify the review process and, where policy requires it, the consequences of continued non-compliance. Do not threaten an outcome that the manager has no authority to impose.

Five. Record and review

Document the agreed wording, date, participants, support and review point. Give the individual a copy and allow them to record disagreement or additional context. At each review, discuss evidence, recognise improvement and adjust the plan where circumstances have changed. Close the objective explicitly once the behaviour is consistently meeting the standard.

Top practical tip

Write the Context section as if a neutral observer had recorded it: dates, actions and effects, with no speculation about attitude or intent.

Top pitfall

Do not turn CASE into a pre-written accusation. If the individual cannot explain their perspective, challenge the evidence or discuss support, the document is unlikely to produce either learning or procedural fairness.

Further reading

• Cotton, D. (twenty fifteen). Key Management Development Models: more than seventy tools for Developing Yourself, Managing Others, and Organizations. Pearson.
• Cotton, D. (2014). Managing Difficult People in a Week. Teach Yourself.
• Mager, R.F. (nineteen sixty-two). Preparing Instructional Objectives. Fearon Publishers.