I believe we’ll all experience this more than once throughout our career.  For me, the degree to which the rater and senior rater (SR) diverge dictates how I would handle this problem.

Minor discrepancies can often be handled by addressing the problem directly with the rater to adjust fire on expectations.  It’s the major break-aways from SR’s priorities that pit the rated officer in the middle of a challenging situation.  Sometimes these disparate goals result as unintended consequences, such as when a top-down refocusing of objectives doesn’t flow through the system and the rater has old, unrevised objectives that no longer align with the SR.  In this case, the problem is benign and easily solved by asking tactfully about the discrepancy.

Sometimes, however, a rated officer may run into a rater that intentionally chooses to diverge from SR’s priorities – sometimes even working against the SR’s goals.  When addressing the problem does not resolve it, such as when a rater is aware and unwilling to adjust (“because I’m right,” or “don’t worry about it,” for example), what to do is HIGHLY situational and difficult to make broad recommendations on, as personalities involved and context shape the way forward.

That said, in my experience, I would strongly recommend an escalation of force, so to speak.  What follows is how I would handle such a situation in my current organization, and the scenario below assumes that my rater’s objectives are the problematic ones rather than my SR.

Address it on an official basis with the rater to indicate why it is a problem and why resolving it is in the best interest of the organization
Depending on the severity of the situation or significance of the objective, if the rater does not resolve it after this, notify rater that you feel this requires the SR’s involvement and that you are interested in all parties coming together to find the solution.
Meet with SR (and rater, if present) and address the same points – lay out SR’s objectives, rater’s objectives, highlight the discrepancy and ask what you should focus on.  Handling it this way will allow and force SR and rater to address the issue head-on and own the solution and (mostly) avoids a scenario where you are throwing the rater under the bus.  I say (mostly) because some raters can see this as a confrontational action regardless of your intent to make the organization better.  These types of leaders require a special touch effort to sustain a positive, constructive relationship.

In the end, if things remain the same after trying to address the problem and finding no resolution, I would recommend making a judgment call on whose objectives to try to meet during the rating period, weighted first relative to according to what is in line with the organization’s objectives as a whole, second to what is best long-term, and third to what your SR’s objectives are, assuming they’re not the ones that are problematic.

Looking forward to more discussion, as this is a highly situational and extremely complex problem that can have many correct approaches.

Shep