Performance review rating scales are a long-standing feature in many organizations. They offer simplicity and comparability, but also face growing criticism. Should your company continue to use them?
Rating scales make it easier to compare performance across teams. They support compensation planning and give managers a clear framework. For organizations looking for consistency, this structure can be helpful.
At the same time, scales can oversimplify. A single number cannot capture the nuance of complex roles. Errors like central tendency and halo effects are common, as we noted in Just Be Honest With Feedback. Numbers can also dominate the discussion, reducing reviews to a score rather than a conversation about growth.
Organizations are experimenting with alternatives. Competency-based narratives provide richer context. OKR-based assessments tie reviews directly to business outcomes. Some teams use a simplified model, such as “meeting” vs “exceeding expectations,” to reduce complexity while keeping structure.
Each alternative has tradeoffs. Narratives require more manager effort. OKR-based systems depend on disciplined goal setting. Simplified buckets risk being too vague. The right choice depends on the culture and stage of your organization.
No matter what system you use, continuous feedback is critical. As Involve More People in Performance Reviews explains, including multiple perspectives reduces bias and makes evaluations more balanced. Platforms like WorkStory support this by gathering feedback throughout the year and organizing it into summaries managers can rely on.
See Arguments For and Against Pay Increases Based on Performance Review Outcomes for more on how ratings connect to compensation, or revisit Performance Review Dos and Don’ts for guidance on effective conversations.
