This article examines institutional resistance to a new employability scoring feature introduced within the University of Twente's (UT) annual performance review system via the AFAS HR platform. The central tension concerns the addition of a 'labour potential' classification — ranging from 'stable' to 'high potential' — appended to existing performance ratings. The local union consultation body OPUT opposed the feature on grounds of subjectivity, potential misuse in workforce restructuring, and inadequate stakeholder consultation. Empirical evidence of resistance is concrete: the UT's largest service unit, the Centre for Educational Support (CES), saw all seven supervisors refuse to use the feature. HR leadership acknowledges communication gaps but defends the measure as contractually supported under the collective labour agreement (Article 6.7) and linked to strategic workforce planning and career development. The immediate resolution involved making the employability score optional rather than mandatory. The article highlights an unresolved governance dispute between HR and OPUT over the adequacy of prior consultation, with both parties offering contradictory accounts of stakeholder involvement. Key insights: The introduction of an employability score alongside traditional performance ratings triggered significant grassroots resistance, including collective refusal by supervisors in at least one major organisational unit. HR leadership and union representatives offer conflicting accounts of the consultation process, reflecting a breakdown in change management communication rather than purely substantive disagreement over the tool's intent. Making the employability field optional — rather than mandatory — was sufficient to resolve the immediate operational conflict for at least some resisters, suggesting the issue was partly about coercion rather than concept. Practical takeaways: Embedding a strategic workforce planning metric within an individual development-focused review setting creates role conflict — employees and supervisors perceive the two purposes as incompatible within a single conversation. When resistance to a new HR feature reaches the point of active refusal by supervisors, reverting the feature to optional status can de-escalate conflict without fully resolving the underlying governance or trust concerns.