Development centres capitalize upon tried and tested assesment centre methods and are quite widely used in career management. However, a number of issues arise in their option. Some of these reflect the balance between, on the one hand, assesing and grading people and, on the other hand, facilitating and guiding their future development. An investigations is reported of how these issues are experienced and made sense of in a UK-based international company. Data were gathered on two occations one year apart (Ns = 95 and 113) from participant and other stakeholders in a development centre for potential senior managers. Findings indicate that participant who were awarded a high grade at the centre did not necessarily have more positive perceptions of the development centre process. However, grading, with its consequences for development, motivation and social networks was salient in respondents' comments about the centres. Themes in these responses are identified and described. Participants were more likely than othes to value the development centre for reasons related to their development, whereas other were more likely to mention assesment/grading. Few respondents mentioned both. Overall, the findings support, to some extent, concerns about the incompatibility of grading and development, but also suggest that the use of grading does not entirely negate the developmental value of the centres. Much depends on perseptions of how the grading information is used.