Integrity Value Recognition Nomination Form

This form is used to nominate an employee who demonstrated integrity, such as honest reporting, transparent communication, or choosing an ethical course of action under pressure. It gives reviewers a consistent way to capture what happened, why it mattered, and how it reflects the organization’s values. Because it focuses on a specific example, it is better than an open-ended praise note or ad-hoc email. It also creates a clearer audit trail for recognition decisions.

Any manager, peer, HR partner, or cross-functional teammate who directly observed the behavior can submit a nomination. The strongest submissions come from people who can describe the situation, the harder-path context, and the outcome without relying on hearsay. If your process allows it, a submitter can be a witness to the action rather than the employee’s direct supervisor. That helps broaden recognition beyond manager-only nominations.

Use it whenever a qualifying example occurs, rather than waiting for a quarterly or annual cycle. Some organizations review nominations continuously and batch awards on a monthly or quarterly cadence. The form works well for both real-time recognition and scheduled review meetings because it captures the same core details each time. If your program has a cadence, keep the award category aligned to that schedule.

The example summary should briefly describe the situation, the decision the employee made, and the integrity behavior shown. It should be specific enough that a reviewer can understand what happened without extra follow-up. Avoid vague praise like "great attitude" and instead note the concrete action, such as correcting a mistake, escalating a concern, or disclosing a conflict. The best summaries are factual and easy to verify.

Yes, if the nomination may include personal data, sensitive workplace details, or allegations tied to conduct or ethics. Keep data minimization in mind and collect only the fields needed to evaluate the nomination. If the form is public-facing or broadly shared, include a clear note about who will see the submission and what happens after it is sent. If anonymity is allowed in your process, add that option and explain how follow-up works.

Common mistakes include writing a generic compliment instead of a concrete example, leaving out the harder-path context, and failing to explain the impact. Another issue is over-collecting personal details that are not needed for recognition decisions. Reviewers also run into trouble when the award category is too broad or when the form does not clearly state whether the submitter’s identity is visible. Clear prompts and required-vs-optional fields help avoid these problems.

Yes, it can be adapted to match your company’s values language, award tiers, or review workflow. You can rename the value alignment field, add conditional logic for different award categories, or include a manager approval step. Some teams also add a department filter or location field if recognition is reviewed by multiple committees. Keep the form focused on the behavior and impact so customization does not turn it into a generic praise survey.

Informal shout-outs are useful for quick appreciation, but they are hard to compare, search, and review consistently. This template turns a good story into structured data that can support fairer recognition decisions and a clearer record of why someone was nominated. It also helps reviewers see patterns across departments and award categories. If you want a repeatable recognition process, a form is much easier to manage than scattered messages.