Executive Performance Evaluation

The most valuable private tech company out of Europe right now published its performance management playbook. And IMO every entrepreneur should read it. There’s a lot out there about what Revolut has accomplished ($428m in net profit last year, with $2.2bn in revenue and a global customer base of 45 million for starters). There’s a lot less written about how the Revolut team achieved this level of success. Which makes Nik Storonsky’s “Driving High Performance” playbook so valuable. It was co-written by Nik and the team at QuantumLight and somehow manages to condense nearly a decade of Nik’s best practices from growing Revolut into a 30-minutes read. What I find most notable about Nik’s playbook: 🥷 𝐀 𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐇𝐑 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐄𝐎 Nik believes performance management is a science, not an art. It can be standardized and it should be a top CEO priority. At Revolut, this looks like a team of smart operators that can build the process for performance management and constantly fine-tune evaluations and incentives. 🧮 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 Performance is delivered over three dimensions — deliverables, skills and culture — and scorecards are used to describe ideal behavior. Assessment is standardized through yes/no answers. For each seniority level, the performance team sets a bar for expectations and goes through a quarterly process to gather performance reviews, calculate grades, calibrate results, and share those results with managers to deliver feedback. There’s no exception to this process, no matter how junior or senior someone is. The result of such a mathematical approach? Employees get evaluated on outcomes, not intuition. Which means they spend less time focused on positioning themselves positively and more time improving their metrics. 🥇 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐦 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐬 When everything that matters gets measured across functions, both A-players and under-performers are easy to spot. Revolut doesn’t shy away from giving its top 15-25 percent of employees disproportionate compensation. On the other side of the performance coin, they focus on exiting the bottom 0-10% of performers as quickly as possible. At a time when all the talk is about founder mode, here is a concrete, actionable playbook for maintaining peak performance at a large scale. Is Nik’s approach for everyone? No. Can it lead to incredible results for founders that adapt this model to their own culture? Absolutely. Nik Storonsky and QuantumLight, thanks for sharing your secrets - hopefully it will inspire and help a lot of entrepreneurs.

It's Q4—the perfect time to ask: How will we know if our CEO had a great year? Most executive evaluations happen too late, miss critical voices, or produce generic feedback that doesn't drive real change. By the time boards review performance in Q1, it's too late to course-correct for the year ahead. Here's what makes year-end CEO evaluation different—and more valuable: 🎯 Timing Matters Conducting evaluations NOW in Q4 allows you to set clear expectations and strategic priorities for 2026. This builds both alignment and accountability for leaders and their boards. 👥 Dual Perspectives Drive Insight The best evaluations capture feedback from both the Board AND the Senior Management Team separately. Where do their perceptions align? Where do they diverge? Those gaps reveal exactly where focus is needed. 📊 Quantitative + Qualitative = Actionable Numbers tell you what needs attention. Narrative feedback tells you why and how to address it. Combining both creates a genuine development roadmap rather than a static report card. 🔍 Comprehensive ≠ Complicated Evaluate across functional areas (strategy, communication, results) AND leadership competencies (trust, collaboration, vision). This evidence-based approach uncovers what surface-level metrics miss: A CEO might be hitting financial targets while the executive team teeters on burnout from micromanagement. Low communication scores might mean the leader talks too much, too little, or too vaguely—each requiring entirely different development strategies. The framework pinpoints not just what needs work, but why it's not working and how to fix it. 🤝 Third-Party Facilitation Unlocks Candor When evaluations are collected confidentially by an external partner, people share what they really think—not what they think the CEO wants to hear. Success Labs has evaluation tools custom-fit for executive assessment and development planning. The bottom line: CEO evaluation done right is a strategic tool that clarifies priorities, builds accountability, strengthens culture, and sets the stage for breakthrough performance in the year ahead. Is your board conducting a CEO evaluation this year? What's working (or not working) in your process? #Leadership #Development #Evaluation #Strategy #360Feedback #PeopleStrategy

Two Directors with identical P&L results. Same revenue growth. Same cost optimization. One gets fast-tracked to VP. One stays stuck. The difference isn't performance. It's perception. At Director and VP levels, delivery is assumed. What hiring leaders actually evaluate: Scope of ownership: Do you own outcomes or just execute tasks? Nature of decisions: Are you making strategic trade-offs or operational choices? Level of ambiguity: Do you navigate uncertainty or require clear direction? Two candidates can show similar results. One gets shortlisted. The other doesn't. Because one signals: → Enterprise judgment "I shifted our entire product roadmap when customer behavior changed post-acquisition" The other signals: → Strong execution "I increased team productivity by 23% through process improvements" Both create value. Only one suggests executive presence. Enterprise judgment means thinking three moves ahead. Weighing trade-offs that impact the entire business. Making decisions when there's no playbook. If your growth has slowed despite strong delivery, ask: Is your leadership being interpreted at the level you're operating? Document your strategic decisions: What did you choose not to do and why?

Does employee performance at your company rely on a single, a once-a-year rating? Are you optimizing for storytelling or outcomes? How we measure performance directly impacts the results we get. In order to leverage performance systems to compound employee impact, we need to look holistically, at data captured over time to understand trajectory and velocity of employee outcomes. Here are 5 ways to evaluate performance beyond the 5-point scale: ➤ Level Progression: Progression measured by performance across competencies for their role at their level (which can go up or down over time, but generally show the directionality of someone's progress). ➤ Growth Rate: How are employees performing in their level, over time? Growth rate measured by % of change over time (up or down). Rather than subjective "potential" see potential through growth velocity of individuals or teams. ➤ Skill Density: Measure of performance across specific skill dimension. Enables you to benchmark strengths or weaknesses (e.g., IC4s light on "Execution") by function, level, geo and other factors. ➤ Alignment Rate: Are managers and employees aligned on performance expectations? If yes, performance improves, if no, it goes down. Alignment rate is measured by how employees rate themselves vs, their manager. The more dimensions, the greater the alignment potential. ➤ Distribution: Not looking for a bell curve here, but understanding talent density. How do you get the most employees performing their best, and are folks evaluated properly? Why this is different: • Transparent performance expectations and observable behaviors • Focus on nuances of individual performance and growth trends • Alignment as an improvable metric to achieve greater outcomes • Fosters proactive performance improvement (vs. corrective PIPs) 👉 Want the 60-min crash course on building a modern performance program (levels, frameworks, feedback, goals, assessments)? Comment “crash course.” Tagging a few folks here that I know are focused on performance transformation (give them a follow!): Russ Laraway, Lissa Minkin, Shelby Wolpa, Kim Minnick, Jessica Z.

High-performers lose promotions for one predictable reason. They describe responsibility. Decision-makers, however, reward impact. After reviewing hundreds of executive profiles, resumes and year-end self-assessments, I see the same pattern: Exec's (and aspiring exec's!) can easily, and at great length, describe the work and what they were accountable for. They struggle, however, to summarize the outcome and the impact they delivered. They sit in front of a blank LinkedIn profile, completely stuck on how to describe what they actually accomplished. The cost? I've watched brilliant executives get passed over for roles they were overqualified for simply because they couldn't translate their value clearly. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲: • Work: "Led integration of three acquired businesses." • Impact: "Integrated three acquisitions in 18 months, preserved 95% client revenue, reduced operating costs by $2.3M annually." Same executive. Same results. Completely different signal to the market. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘆: → "I don't want to brag." → "It was a team effort." → "The numbers speak for themselves." They don't. Executives are evaluated on translated value. If decision-makers can't see your impact in one sentence, they'll assume it doesn't exist. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘂𝗹𝗮: Context + Action + Measurable Result. ❌ "Managed team through restructuring" ✅ "Guided 40-person team through merger integration, achieving 100% retention of key talent and delivering project 3 weeks ahead of schedule" This isn't about inflating your story. It's about translating your impact into language that helps decision-makers recognize what you can do for them. If you're targeting a promotion or board role this year, open your LinkedIn profile right now. Are you describing tasks? Or outcomes? 💬 𝘖𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘓𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘦𝘥𝘐𝘯 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘸. 𝘙𝘦𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘢. 𝘋𝘳𝘰𝘱 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘸 — 𝘐'𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘪𝘧 𝘪𝘵 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴. ------------ ♻️ Share with someone whose work speaks volumes but whose profile stays silent ➕ Follow Courtney Intersimone for executive advancement strategies that actually work

It’s hard to fairly judge someone’s performance if you haven’t been clear about what you expect from them. One of the first things I do when coaching a CEO is look at how the team is being managed: Step 1: Write out the org chart as it SHOULD be (roles, before assigning names). Step 2: Create a simple one-page Roles and Responsibilities document for each position, clearly spelling out expectations — both in terms of behaviors and role-specific outcomes. Step 3: Review each person against the Roles and Responsibilities for their position, and build a Performance Maximization Plan for them. Step 4: Meet with each person to walk through the org chart, review expectations for their role, and talk honestly about how their current performance compares to what the role requires. I often find that performance issues start with a lack of clarity. Once expectations are clear, performance often improves on its own. This doesn’t solve every underperformance situation. But it does make it much easier to tell whether the person is a bad fit for the role, or the company, or if the expectations themselves need to be adjusted. I’ve included templates below for this exercise: https://lnkd.in/gd65A3r5

When's the last time you did an Executive Audit? You know, it's kinda like a Communications Audit, where you check on how your channels and content are doing. But you do it with your leadership team. It goes like this. Set up three-to-five parameters, each with a five point scale. For example: * Trustworthiness * Likeability * Recognizability (a made up word for gets out among employees and often) * Communication/Presentation Skills * Breadth of Knowledge Beyond Their Org Chart Responsibilities These are just examples. You may have completely different needs based on your culture, what your employees want/need from your leaders and other variables. Then use your handy-dandy org chart and start at the top and go down 3 or 4 levels or however far down is appropriate for you. For each leader, rate them on a 1-to-5 scale on each of your parameters, with 1 as the low end and 5 as the high end. For example, using the five parameters above: CEO: * Trustworthiness: 3 * Likeability: 2 * Recognizability: 2 * Comms/Presentation Skills: 3 * Breadth of Knowledge: 3 CFO: * Trustworthiness: 5 * Likeability: 3 * Recognizability: 4 * Comms/Presentation Skills: 4 * Breadth of Knowledge: 4 And so on. You can also ask a few trusted employees what they think and even use some of your digital platform analytics as part of your evaluation. When you're done, now you have a rather unscientific but qualitative gutcheck on who should be handling what kinds of comms at your company. In the example above, you should rely on the CFO more often than the CEO (and possibly other leaders) because she scores higher on the things that matter more to your employees. You may even uncover a few unicorns deeper in your org chart who are rock stars but rarely get any broad communication responsibilities. Of course, this Executive Audit is for your eyes only, unless you have the kind of culture where leaders are comfortable knowing they are good at some things and not so good at other things. If that's true, don't ever leave. You can also use your gutcheck to figure out who needs some polish in a couple of areas to make them even better. Those are opportunities for you to work with them to provide that polish. This is something they usually already know they need but are too embarrassed to ask for because, in their minds, leaders are supposed to be perfect at everything automatically. Give it a try and see how it impacts your choices for different comms scenarios, their own growth over time and how your employees respond. You're already doing all the hard comms work. Might as well have it delivered in the best way possible, yes?