Performance Appraisal Rating Labels: What’s Best, What’s Worst? Part 2
Last time I talked about the survey I did of 84 HR directors asking them their feelings about what the best and worst terms for performance should be used on a performance appraisal form. Everybody agreed the Unacceptable was as bad as it gets. The problem is, “Unacceptable” is such a derogatory label that probably no manager would ever use it. My advice—save the Unacceptable term for describing the quality of Louie’s performance in the narrative section, but make Unsatisfactory the bottom rating label.
Unlike the bottom end of the scale where there was almost universal agreement on the term to use, the top end of the performance ladder presented a virtual tie. The three choices I offered for best-of-breed performance were Distinguished, Outstanding, and Superior.
The results? Outstanding garnered 29 of 84 votes to win the top position, but
Superior closely followed with 28. Distinguished, with 27 votes, came in last. A virtual dead tie. Essentially, respondents found no difference among the three contenders for the label describing genuinely exemplary performance. “We struggle with this each time we revise the system!” reported Debbie Bridge of the American College of Emergency Physicians. And Mary Stanley, Director of Human Resources for COSI Columbus, the Columbus, Ohio science museum, admitted the struggle that many respondents reported in saying that while Outstanding seemed to be the highest of the three terms, she would personally prefer to use Distinguished for performance appraisal purposes.
Don’t ignore the middle rating
While there’s universal agreement that Unacceptable is the nastiest term for the worst performance, and while it’s pay-your-money, take-your-choice for the highest performance designator, the question most organizations don’t spend enough time discussing is what to call the middle rating—the place where most people actually end up. Few of us are Distinguished; fewer still are Unacceptable. Most of us perform at the middle, fully successful level, and Fully Successful is an ideal designator for the middle position.
Here’s another jewel of a designator: Fort Worth’s Alcon Laboratories calls its middle performance appraisal position GSP—Good Solid Performer. And one of America’s largest manufacturers of large household appliances calls the middle rating in its five-point system: Strong Results. Who could object to being considered a good solid performer or complain about being seen as producing strong results?
No one likes to be considered mediocre, but most designators used for the middle position give that lackluster impression: Competent or Acceptable or Meets Expectations.
Abolish these mediocrities! I remember clearly the pain in a client CEO’s voice as he described how 19 years before he had received a performance appraisal rating of, “Wholly Adequate.” No one wants to be labeled as merely adequate or average, but too often the term used to designate the middle position gives that impression. Find a rating label that connotes real success, and you’ll give the majority of appraisees something to feel proud of.
About the Author
Dick Grote is a management consultant in Dallas, Texas and the author of several books. His most recent book, How to Be Good at Performance Appraisals, was published by the Harvard Business Review Press in July 2011.
