We're looking to change our performance ratings which is currently a 5-point scale labeled 1- unsatisfactory 2- needs improvement 3-meets expectations 4-exceeds expectations and 5-outstanding. I am researching options to go to a 3 or 4-point scale with less focus on the rating NUMBER and more focus on the description. My hope is that there is less emphasis on your number and more emphasis on getting feedback from your manager. What performance ratings are you using, and what are they labeled?
Sort By:
Oldest
Director of HR6 months ago
I would remove and or hid all numbers from the process. Companies are all over the map. What kind of behaviors are you trying to drive? Remember this is the 2nd most hated HR process - the 1st one is laying people off. I would love Gartner to host a open mic on this topic :) Director of HR6 months ago
To a Very Great Extent To a Great Extent
To Some Extent
To a Little Extent
Not At All
Does Not Apply
Outstanding
Fully Performing
Contributing
Marginally Performing
Unsatisfactory
Very Good
Good
Below Average
Poor
Unacceptable
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Below Average
Unacceptable
Significantly Exceeds Expectations
Above Expectations
At Expectations
Below Expectations
Substantially Exceeds Standard
Exceeds Standards
Meets Standard
Needs Improvement
Unacceptable
Fully Competent
Competent
Requires Development
Unsatisfactory or Below Standard
Not Assessed
Outstanding
Fully Performing
Effective
Somewhat Effective
Improvement Needed
Outstanding
Exceeds Expectations
Meets Expectations
Below Expectations
Unsatisfactory
Excellent
Good
Needs Improvement
Exceeds Expectations
Meets Expectations
Below Expectations
Above Standard
Standard
Below Standard
**Exceptional
Meaningful
Limited
** this last list one I am drawn to - it speaks to the overall impact a person has had on the business - I prefer it to all the rest - having employees understand they are rewarded based on their impact - this normally gets lost in our HR processes :)
VP of HR6 months ago
If your performance ratings are tied into compensation, then you will struggle to differentiate between your top performers and equitably distribute merit increases accordingly. Going to fewer options gives you less granularity and can compress higher performers with lower ones. We use the traditional Likert Scale with similar descriptions. This has been around forever, and everyone tries to get away from it but it has proven itself over time and in my opinion and experience is the best option. Best of luck.Chief Talent Officer6 months ago
We are currently making the shift from a 4-point scale to a 6 point scale, with one of the 6 being “Too New to Rate.” The labels are similar to your existing scale. What we’ve learned over the years is that the rating scale, whether designed with numbers or descriptors, is not what matters. What matters are the behaviors applied to assessing someone’s performance, having the right performance-improving conversations with employees, and having a mindset of using the rating system as a tool to drive performance.Our strategic approach is an enterprise-wide mindset shift and change management effort to bring forth the behaviors needed to drive performance while using talent management tools, such as a performance rating system.
Director of HR6 months ago
We removed performance ratings some years ago in order to put a greater emphasis on the conversation rather than the number. At one point part of our business moved to a 4 point scale to remove the likelihood of '3' for satisfactory being the default and encourage leaders to be more thoughtful