Performance Appraisals

Описание: Performance appraisals are one of the hardest jobs in leadership because they affect promotions, bonuses, bigger responsibilities — and sometimes who gets shown the door. That’s why both sides of the table get tense: employees feel judged, and bosses often feel like they’re being asked to play “merchant of doom” inside a system they may not even agree with.

Why do performance appraisals feel so stressful for both bosses and employees?

Performance appraisals feel stressful because the stakes are real and the conversation is deeply personal. When someone’s pay, promotion prospects, or continued employment is on the line, even good performers can get nervous — and many managers get uncomfortable delivering blunt feedback.

This stress spikes in different ways across contexts. In Japan and other high-harmony cultures, managers may avoid direct critique and staff may read between the lines, which can leave the “real message” unspoken. In the US and parts of Europe, the feedback can be more direct, but the legal and HR risk can make leaders cautious and scripted. In multinationals, calibration meetings (HR, department heads, regional heads) add pressure; in SMEs, it’s often the owner-manager doing it without any training.

Do now: Treat the appraisal as a leadership skill — prepare like you would for a major client pitch.

Is forced ranking and “bottom 10%” performance appraisal still a problem?

Forced ranking creates fear and politics because someone must lose by design, even if the team is solid. Leaders hate those meetings where everyone is plotted on a bell curve and the “bottom group” becomes a target — not always because they’re hopeless, but because the organisation needs a number to cut.

Historically, forced ranking got popular in big corporate systems (the GE/Jack Welch era still gets cited), but it can backfire in modern work where collaboration is the productivity engine. In a startup, a forced curve can be absurd because every role is critical and teams are tiny. In a Japanese corporate setting, it can feel especially brutal because loyalty is valued, and the manager becomes the “executioner” of a process they may see as flawed.

Do now: If your organisation calibrates on a curve, focus your energy on clear standards and documented evidence — not defending by emotion.

What is the RAVE framework for doing performance appraisals properly?

RAVE is a simple formula that makes appraisals clearer, fairer, and more future-focused: Review, Analyse, Vision, Encourage.

“Review” anchors the discussion in the role’s results description and the “should be” standard, instead of vibes. “Analyse” looks at the “as is” reality using the person’s monthly project list and key business elements — where they’re strong, where they’re short, and why. “Vision” shifts the conversation forward: what does future success look like, what gaps must close, and what support is needed? “Encourage” prevents the classic failure mode where the meeting demotivates the person; the leader’s communication style decides whether the employee leaves engaged or defeated.

Do now: Write R-A-V-E at the top of your prep notes and build the meeting around those four moves.

How do you “Review” performance results without drowning in subjective judgement?

You review performance by starting with the “should be” standard and tying feedback to observable results.

When roles are numbers-heavy (sales targets, margin, project delivery dates, customer retention), the “ideal outcomes” are usually obvious. The danger zone is qualitative work — leadership, teamwork, judgment, communication — where managers slip into the fog of opinion. That’s where you need standards: specific behaviours, clear expectations, and real examples. In a multinational, this might mean competency frameworks and leadership models; in an SME, it can be a simple scorecard with defined behaviours. In Japan, be careful of over-relying on “effort” or “attitude” as a proxy for results; in the US, be careful of over-relying on numbers without context (territory, market conditions, team dependencies).

Do now: Bring three examples: one win, one gap, one pattern — all tied to the role standard.

How do you “Analyse” monthly projects and decide if it’s a performance issue or a role-fit issue?

You analyse performance by comparing the person’s “as is” output to the “should be” goals and asking whether the job matches their capacity.

This is the tough leadership fork in the road: is the person in the right role, and can they realistically meet the level the organisation needs? If they’re falling short, the next decision is not moral — it’s practical. Sometimes you can redesign the job, move them into a better fit, or coach the missing capability. Other times, the gap is too large and the...