Grove's Performance Review System
The single most important form of task-relevant feedback a manager can provide
The performance review is the most powerful form of task-relevant feedback and one of the highest-leverage activities a manager performs. Its fundamental purpose is to improve the subordinate's future performance, not to catalog past events. Grove outlines how to assess performance using both output measures and internal measures, how to account for time offsets between activity and results, and how to deliver the assessment using the three L's: Level (be frank), Listen (use all senses to ensure your message lands), and Leave yourself out (it's about the subordinate, not your comfort).
- The fundamental purpose is to improve future performance, not to catalog the past
- Assess performance, not potential—real output, not good form
- Use both output measures and internal measures, with appropriate weighting
- Account for time offsets: this year's output may reflect last year's work
- The Three L's: Level (be frank), Listen (ensure your message lands), Leave yourself out
- A subordinate can only absorb a finite number of messages—focus on the vital few
- A manager's performance rating cannot be higher than his organization's
- Spend more time improving stars, not just rescuing poor performers
- Prepare Using the Worksheet MethodReview all data: progress reports, quarterly objectives, one-on-one notes. Write everything down on a blank sheet without editing. Then look for relationships and patterns. Group related items into 'messages.' Reduce to the vital few your subordinate can actually absorb.Pro tipIf your subordinate can absorb four messages and you have seven, delete three. What you skip this time can be addressed next review.
- Assess Both Output and Internal MeasuresOutput measures are tangible results: sales, shipments, designs completed. Internal measures assess what is happening inside the organization: morale, turnover, capability building, process health. Weight them appropriately—sometimes 50/50, sometimes 90/10.Pro tipWatch for time offsets. Strong output metrics may be the light from distant stars—results of work done long before the review period.WarningA manager whose organization is performing poorly cannot receive a high personal rating, even if he 'acts like' a good manager.
- Deliver the Written Review Before the MeetingGive the subordinate the written review before the face-to-face discussion so he can read it privately, react, and come prepared for a productive conversation.WarningReading the review aloud to the subordinate during the meeting leaves him eager to know what comes next and unable to focus on current points.
- Conduct the Face-to-Face Using the Three L'sLevel: be completely frank, even when praising. Listen: use all your senses to confirm your message is being received—watch for verbal and nonverbal cues. Leave yourself out: your insecurities and comfort are irrelevant; this is the subordinate's day in court.Pro tipStraightforward praise can be just as hard to deliver as criticism. Be prepared for both.
- Navigate the Stages of Problem ResolutionFor 'blast' reviews where there is a major problem, guide the subordinate through the stages: ignoring the problem, denying it, blaming others, assuming responsibility, and finding the solution. The hardest transition is from blame to responsibility—an emotional step. The move from responsibility to solution is intellectual and easier.Pro tipAny outcome that includes a commitment to action is acceptable. You need commitment, not agreement.WarningIf you try to find solutions while the subordinate is still in the blaming stage, nothing productive will happen.
Grove gave a manager a superior rating based on excellent output measures: sales growth, profit margins, working products. But internal measures—high turnover, grumbling—told a different story. The next year, performance collapsed as the previous period's momentum ran out.
Grove insisted on rewriting a subordinate's performance review that the subordinate considered adequate. After heated discussion and deadlock, Grove said he understood the disagreement but was instructing the rewrite because the integrity of the review system mattered more to him.
Grove discovered the difficulty of performance reviews firsthand when he gave a high rating to a manager whose organization was producing excellent output, only to find the next year that performance collapsed. The strong output had been the 'light from distant stars'—the result of work done years earlier. The internal measures (turnover, grumbling) had told the true story, but Grove had lacked the judgment and courage to act on them.