5 Tips for Redefining Success in Performance Reviews
I’ve noticed a trend among many of the organizations I work with: They are changing the way they do performance reviews.
More specifically, teams are introducing (or reintroducing) rating scales as a way to measure performance. Instead of doing reviews in a more binary way (with an “on track” or “off track” type of rating) or no rating system at all, many are now measuring success on a numerical scale (typically a 1-to-5 scale.). I say “reintroducing” because some of our clients have shared with me that they used numerical ratings in the past, but for one reason or another, they moved to more subjective ways of tracking performance, and now are ready to switch back.
Why are organizations making this change? The most common reasons I’ve heard: 1) They are recognizing that leaders aren’t holding people accountable and feel a rating scale will contribute to more accountability, and 2) In a time when many are facing change and need to evolve to stay competitive in the future, they want teams of high performers. They need a way to clearly see who on the team is performing well and who isn’t.
Lately, it’s been one of the most popular topics I’m speaking about. I’ve been asked to prepare leaders to deliver performance reviews with candor and compassion, and I’ve been asked to help those on the other side of those conversations make the most of their reviews.
I’m not going to sugarcoat it: I see a lot of challenges with the rating-scale method.
Change of any kind can be hard. But performance reviews are already such a delicate topic, and this shift to a numerical scale can really damage trust on a team if it’s not handled well. Many of the leaders I’ve talked to about making this change are worried. They are afraid of demotivating their teams by delivering scores that their people don’t fully understand or agree with, especially at a time when there is so much uncertainty. Adding to their anxiety is usually a limit to the number of high scores they can give. Some are told, for example, that the vast majority of scores they give should be middle-of-the-road (i.e. 3 out of 5), while only the very tip-top performers who have the biggest impacts and outputs should receive 4s or 5s. So, right from the start, they know they will have to disappoint people by giving scores that aren't as high as they could be.
I’ve learned a lot about how to turn reviews into moments that bring people closer, even when the review process is changing. In this post, I want to share the challenges I’ve seen in performance reviews and offer tips for how leaders can navigate these in a way that builds trust, not breaks it. Even if you’re not a leader or your team doesn’t use a numerical rating scale, these tips can help you navigate any kind of performance review with clarity and intention.
Let’s dive in!
1) Align on the rating scale.
First, let’s talk about the scale. When you’re implementing a numerical rating system, your very first step should be to clearly define what those numbers mean and share those definitions with your team so that everyone is on the same page.
Many of the teams I’ve worked with are implementing a 1-to-5 rating scale, so that’s what I’ll use as an example here.
The thing about a numerical scale is that numbers mean something to us, right? They have inherent value. In the case of a 5 being the best score you could get, it makes sense that a score of 1 or 2 could be interpreted as unsatisfactory. And if that’s what 1 and 2 mean, it would also make sense that a score of 3 out of 5—smack in the middle, and just one above “unsatisfactory”—is also less-than-great.
But here’s where the confusion starts: Most organizations say that 3s are actually good scores and that the majority of people should actually receive 3s. That’s because, to them, a 3 “meets expectations.” It means that there is nothing wrong with the way someone is doing their job; they are a good and steady performer.
This also means that they want 4s to be rare and 5s even rarer. They believe those scores should be reserved for only the best of the best performers who go above and beyond and make a wider impact. The point is not for everyone to achieve a 4 or 5 in every single review; it’s to give people something to strive for.
I’m not saying you can’t define your scale like this. I’ve seen teams define their ratings scales in the way I’ve just described, and it works for them. But it only works if you are very clear about what each score means.
If a 3 is a good score and the goal is for most people to receive 3s instead of 4s and 5s, that should be the message that people hear most. If 4s and 5s are very rare and only for those who go above and beyond, be clear about what going above and beyond looks like and how people can achieve it. Well before performance review season, have conversations with your team about the scale you will be using, and make sure everyone has the same definition of each score.
2) Talk about performance year-round, not just during reviews.
Speaking of conversations: One thing that's come up in a few sessions I've led is the question of how to deliver a rating of 3, for example, to someone who is expecting a 5. And my response is always, “Why would they be expecting a 5 if they’re getting a 3?”
To me, that is a symptom of a bigger issue. That shows me that you're not having conversations about performance outside of reviews. If you were, and you were aligned on the scale, and you talked about it in your conversations leading up to the review, then there should be no surprises. You could even tell the person proactively that they are on track to get a 3 and share with them what it would take to get to a 4 or a 5 before the performance review. You could even say that it is unlikely they will get a 4 or 5 in that particular review cycle if that is the truth.
Once again, my solution here is to talk about it. Add a section for feedback to your one-to-ones so that you’re constantly giving and receiving it. When performance is an ongoing conversation, reviews become just that: reviews of everything you've already discussed. Ideally, performance reviews should be a recap of the feedback conversations you've had throughout the year and no one should be shocked at the rating they are receiving.
3) Be clear about what people can do to increase their scores.
Performance reviews are the perfect opportunity to talk about growth. No matter what score you give someone, make sure you also share with them how they can improve that score. Getting a rating and not knowing how you can improve it is very frustrating, so if you’re the person giving out the scores, you owe it to your people to be specific about ways that they can increase their scores. And be specific.
One of my favorite ways to deliver this feedback is through a method called “Keeps and Considers.” The way that it works is you share 2-3 specific things that you want the person to keep doing (these are the behaviors that would contribute to higher ratings), and 2-3 specific things that you want the person to consider doing differently (these would be behaviors that are limiting the person’s growth and ability to achieve a higher score).
Even when someone gets the highest rating on the scale, make sure you have something specific to share about how they can continue to elevate. If they’re a high performer, they more than anyone want more opportunities to excel and will appreciate a tangible roadmap.
4) Own the scores you give.
This is a big one when it comes to trust. I often see leaders blaming their leaders or their HR departments for the scores they give. When leaders are only allowed to give out a certain number of high scores, for example, it might feel easier to blame the “system” on that score instead of owning it. I find that leaders do this most often when they haven't been having conversations about performance throughout the year; when the person is a friend whose feelings they don’t want to hurt; or when they are afraid of demotivating the person. It’s a way to dodge accountability and make the conversation feel less personal.
Blaming a score on someone or something else only breaks trust between people and their organization. If you put the score in that context, the person receiving it likely won't feel that the score is fair. Part of leadership is being accountable for the decisions you make. Even if you can only give a certain number of high scores, you’re still the one assigning the scores. You owe it to your people to stand by your decisions and give them an explanation as to why you made them. Instead of blaming external factors, own your perspective.
I think it’s okay to acknowledge that you wish you could give someone a higher score. It’s okay to own your human feelings about it. But also, be very clear about why you are giving the score you gave and, if it’s low, what the person can do to improve it.
5) Remember your why.
As a leader, your role is to help people grow. And you absolutely cannot do that if you aren’t having honest conversations about performance.
I think it’s easy for leaders to let fear creep into review conversations, especially a fear of how someone will react to bad news. Where we often get it wrong is that we think that if we cushion our feedback, minimize it, or even avoid it altogether, we won’t hurt the level of trust between us and our people. But it’s actually the opposite. The very act of minimizing or avoiding feedback is what hurts our people—and our relationships with them—the most.
When we’re giving a review, we have to remember to lean into our roles as leaders. It’s up to us to be very clear about what we see in people and how we can help them grow. In the end, that is what is going to lead to building even more trust and showing our people that we truly care about them.
So, there you have it: My best tips for leaders who are delivering performance reviews. But before I wrap up, I want to say that the reverse of everything I’ve said here is true for those on the other side of those conversations. When you're on the receiving end of a review, you deserve all of these things. If you don't understand the ratings scale, ask for clarity. If your leader doesn’t give you specific feedback on how to increase your score, ask for it. If your leader isn’t having conversations with you about your performance throughout the year, ask for that. Performance reviews should be two-way streets. If you’re confused or you have doubts, start a conversation with your leader and tell them how they can help you. Leaders need feedback, too!
I want to know: What are your thoughts on this post? What resonates? Where do you find challenges with the performance-review process? Hit “reply” and tell me all about it!
(And PS: If you’re a leader looking to boost trust with your next performance review, check out our Facilitator’s Guide to Quarterly Reviews. On our team, we use the 360 format, which you can learn more about in our guide!)
You’ve got this!
Big hugs,
