Performance Appraisals
Wed Feb 04 2026
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 organisation will replace them with someone more capable. That doesn't make them "bad"; it means the requirements outgrew them.
Do now: Identify the root cause: skill gap, will gap, role mismatch, resource constraints, or unclear standards — then choose the right fix.
How do you create "Vision" and "Encourage" so the appraisal motivates rather than crushes them?
You motivate by being frank about gaps while painting a believable path forward — and then encouraging effort toward that future.
"Vision" answers: what does success look like next year, what growth is required, and what time/energy/resources must be committed? It also tackles an awkward truth: some bosses fear developing staff because they worry their subordinate will replace them. The smarter view is succession builds your reputation — organisations promote leaders who produce leaders.
"Encourage" is where many managers fail. They do the backward-looking critique, but they don't set up the future in a way that energises the employee. Because appraisals happen only a few times a year, skill doesn't build naturally — preparation must compensate.
Do now: End the meeting with a clear 90-day plan: one improvement focus, one support action from you, one measurable outcome.
Conclusion
Performance appraisals don't have to feel like judgement day. When you anchor the review in clear standards, analyse real work, set a forward vision, and encourage the person properly, the meeting becomes a leadership tool — not a trauma event. RAVE is a simple, repeatable structure that helps you avoid subjectivity, reduce fear, and lift performance with clarity and humanity.
Quick next steps for leaders
Prepare with RAVE: Review → Analyse → Vision → Encourage. Bring evidence: standards, examples, patterns, and project outcomes. Decide the real issue: capability, role fit, resources, or clarity. Finish with a 90-day forward plan and weekly check-ins. FAQs
Should managers do appraisals more than once a year? Yes — frequent check-ins reduce surprise and make the annual review smoother.
What's the biggest mistake in appraisal meetings? Talking only about the past and failing to create a motivating future plan.
How do you reduce subjectivity? Use clear standards plus specific examples linked to the role's "should be."
Author credentials
Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー).
Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, which are widely followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan.
More
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 organisation will replace them with someone more capable. That doesn't make them "bad"; it means the requirements outgrew them. Do now: Identify the root cause: skill gap, will gap, role mismatch, resource constraints, or unclear standards — then choose the right fix. How do you create "Vision" and "Encourage" so the appraisal motivates rather than crushes them? You motivate by being frank about gaps while painting a believable path forward — and then encouraging effort toward that future. "Vision" answers: what does success look like next year, what growth is required, and what time/energy/resources must be committed? It also tackles an awkward truth: some bosses fear developing staff because they worry their subordinate will replace them. The smarter view is succession builds your reputation — organisations promote leaders who produce leaders. "Encourage" is where many managers fail. They do the backward-looking critique, but they don't set up the future in a way that energises the employee. Because appraisals happen only a few times a year, skill doesn't build naturally — preparation must compensate. Do now: End the meeting with a clear 90-day plan: one improvement focus, one support action from you, one measurable outcome. Conclusion Performance appraisals don't have to feel like judgement day. When you anchor the review in clear standards, analyse real work, set a forward vision, and encourage the person properly, the meeting becomes a leadership tool — not a trauma event. RAVE is a simple, repeatable structure that helps you avoid subjectivity, reduce fear, and lift performance with clarity and humanity. Quick next steps for leaders Prepare with RAVE: Review → Analyse → Vision → Encourage. Bring evidence: standards, examples, patterns, and project outcomes. Decide the real issue: capability, role fit, resources, or clarity. Finish with a 90-day forward plan and weekly check-ins. FAQs Should managers do appraisals more than once a year? Yes — frequent check-ins reduce surprise and make the annual review smoother. What's the biggest mistake in appraisal meetings? Talking only about the past and failing to create a motivating future plan. How do you reduce subjectivity? Use clear standards plus specific examples linked to the role's "should be." Author credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, which are widely followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan.