Employee Performance Benchmarking

You can’t improve manager performance if you don’t know what “good” is. Benchmarks fix that. Most companies use surveys to measure manager performance. But surveys capture sentiment, not behavior. Benchmarks reveal what actually drives team outcomes. Here’s what leading organizations are tracking: 1. Focus time. Top quartile managers create 90+ minute blocks daily. Below median managers lose 3+ hours to interruptions. Every 30-minute block lost means slower problem solving and execution. 2. Collaboration patterns. Effective managers work with 15–25 strong collaborators weekly. Too many collaborators = shallow alignment. Too few = risk of isolation or bottlenecks. 3. Meetings and 1:1s. High-performing teams meet in smaller, faster cycles. Fewer meetings with 10+ attendees improves ownership. Weekly 1:1s boost engagement and growth metrics by over 20%. 4. Workload and Slack activity. Managers above the 75th percentile in Slack messages show higher burnout. Excess messages correlate with fewer focus hours and less strategic time. Longer workdays don’t lead to higher performance, just higher churn. Behavioral benchmarks make manager effectiveness measurable. And give teams a way to improve, not just evaluate. How does your manager data compare?

I audited 50+ performance programs. Here’s what I found. After interviewing to people leaders at companies sized 50 to 5,000 employees in tech, healthcare, AI, consulting, construction, manufacturing, finance about their programs—the patterns are the same. Want to see how you stack up? Comment AUDIT and I’ll send you my link 1) Tools exist. Engagement does not. Templates, cycles, and docs live next to the work, not in it. Managers see “another form,” or an "extra thing" not a tool that makes them better managers. 🛠️ The fix: Add lightweight checkpoints in the flow of work; auto-prompt managers & employees on real milestones (1:1s, project/sprint end); use AI to surface likely evidence from notes/goals so feedback isn’t a blank page. 2) Foundations for fair promotion decisions are still lacking. Promotion gates aren’t tied to clear, leveled behaviors, so calibration becomes a lengthy and costly debate. On top of it, most employees can’t see the bar. 🛠️ The fix: Publish transparent levels (scope, autonomy, outcomes) and a leveled rubric; rate against competencies (with 2–3 evidence bullets), not just an overall label; performance feedback monthly; Stop 9-boxing. 3) Individual performance ≠ company results. Most companies have some version of goals, but most employee goals are often bottom-up and unverified (yet performance is still measured against these). 🛠️ The fix: Use a light cascade (company → function → team → individual) OR stop at team; combine goal attainment and competency rating as separate, weighted inputs to an overall score. 4) Managers don’t see value (and it’s an expensive process). Hours spent writing narratives for their reviews then sitting in calibration to justify gut feel. Most of this effort does not improve business outcomes. 🛠️ The fix: Pre-calibrate folks against clearly defined performance rubrics; Use "calibration" as-needed, not after every review; leverage AI to flag outliers and synthesize themes for managers to verify. 5) “Continuous” is the goal but still not operationalized. Most programs still run in bursts; the system doesn’t generate small, in-flow signals between cycles. 🛠️ The fix: Make feedback embedded, prompted, and auto-aggregated from the work you already do. Continuous = ongoing signals, not more meetings. TL;DR Less form, more signal. A level-based structure. Embedded prompts. Short, regular performance (feedback) loops. If you want a quick, no-fluff audit with a maturity score and top 3 priorities—comment AUDIT and I’ll send a calendar link.

Rethinking Performance Reviews: From Ratings to Impact What if we stopped assigning performance ratings and instead started recognizing performance by its impact? Employers: If you are embracing a performance model rooted in continuous feedback and want to develop a growth-oriented culture, consider using “Degree of Impact” as your metric. "Degree of Impact" measures the scope, significance, and sustainability of an employee's contributions across four dimensions: 1.       Business Outcomes – Driving team and organization results 2.       Customer Value – Improving customer results, experience, and satisfaction 3.       Team Success – Collaborating to elevate others and their results 4.       Enabling Others – Coaching, mentoring, and sharing tools as well as knowledge Instead of a static rating scale, we assess outcomes in terms of Low, Medium, or High Impact: Low Impact - Definition: Contributions are consistent with role expectations but have a localized or short-term effect. Indicators: (a) Completed assigned tasks reliably (b) Minimal innovation or change driven by employee (c) Supported team members occasionally (d) No measurable change in business or customer outcomes Medium Impact - Definition: Contributions moderately exceed role expectations and affect broader team or process outcomes. Indicators: (a) Initiated improvements or solved moderate challenges (b) Enhanced efficiency or quality in a repeatable way (c) Regularly assisted peers or improved team dynamics (d) Helped retain customers or improved customer feedback High Impact - Definition: Contributions significantly exceed role expectations, drives lasting change or substantial business/customer success. Indicators: (a) Led major initiatives or innovations (b) Directly contributed to revenue growth, cost savings, or major customer wins (c) Elevated team performance through mentoring, coaching, or creating reusable resources/tools (d) Role-modeled feedback and improvement culture; helped multiple others succeed This model shifts the focus to fueling high performance broadly. It gives leaders better insight into who’s creating real, scalable, and sustainable value. It can also be linked to compensation and career growth: Base pay increases and bonuses reflect the level of impact, not just tenure or task completion. This approach helps build a culture of ownership, growth, recognition, and continuous improvement. Are you using something similar in your organization? #Compensation #CareerDevelopment #HR #TotalRewards #PerformanceManagement #ContinuousFeedback #PeopleFirst #CompensationConsultant #TalentManagement https://shorturl.at/0BeN4

Everyone talks about setting high standards. No one talks about this part. It's about the people you choose not to keep. Most scaling companies hope people will figure out what high performance looks like. Kaveh Rostampor, CEO of Planhat, shared a different approach in our recent SaaS Scaling Secrets conversation. Before hiring anyone, his team creates an "expectation document" that maps out exactly what success looks like: - Month 1 expectations - Month 3 benchmarks - Month 6 performance markers They define three performance levels in writing: 1️⃣ What great looks like 2️⃣ What mediocre looks like 3️⃣ What unacceptable looks like Then they show candidates the document and ask: "Are you ready to sign up for this?" Here's how it works in practice: The hiring manager creates the document before posting the role They break down 12-month goals into monthly milestones Each milestone gets specific, measurable criteria The document becomes the foundation for all performance conversations The insight that stuck with me? "High standards are not about the things you say. It's about the people you don't keep." This approach is one of the things that enables Planhat to stay cashflow positive while scaling rapidly. The result? Kaveh shared that senior people at Planhat have "almost zero churn."  People who've been there for some time simply don't leave. When expectations are crystal clear from day one, both sides know what success looks like. What's your experience with setting clear expectations?

“Peanut Butter” vs true “Pay-for-Performance” raises: how disproportionately should you reward your top performers? Which strategy is optimal during merit cycles? [𝗔] 𝗣𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘂𝘁 𝗕𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿. Evenly spread the salary raise budget across as many employees as possible to appease the masses and hopefully mitigate widespread regrettable attrition. Not to mention pay equity interests. vs. [𝗕] 𝗣𝗮𝘆-𝗳𝗼𝗿-𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲. Disproportionately award the majority of the salary raise budget to the so-called “20% of top performers driving 80%” of the impact as a way to recognizably demonstrate the behavior you want all employees to emulate. Anecdotally, most Heads of Total Rewards and Comp I meet with claim they want to be a “[B] Pay-for-Performance” company. However, when you look at the market data, you’ll find that the majority of companies end up skewing towards “[A] Peanut Butter” in practice. ____________________ We recently took a look at merit cycle data across 73,000+ incumbents from Pave's dataset who participated in a 2024 merit cycle. We then grouped and analyzed employees across four groups: –1: 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗱 –2: 𝗔𝗯𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀: all non-promoted employees receiving a rating better than “meets expectations” –3: 𝗠𝗲𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀: all non-promoted employees receiving a rating equivalent to “meets expectations” –4: 𝗕𝗲𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀: all non-promoted employees receiving a rating worse than “meets expectations” ______________ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀: ✅ Promoted employees => 10.0% median raise ✅ Above expectations, no promo => 5.0% median raise ✅ Meets expectations, no promo => 3.7% median raise ✅ Below expectations, no promo => 2.8% median raise ______________ 𝗠𝘆 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀: The “Above expectations” and “Meets expectations” salary raise benchmarks are remarkably similar–5.0% vs. 3.7% median raises respectively. I would expect more differentiation for top performers given how commonly I hear the term “pay for performance” thrown around these days. Top performers surely drive more than a +1.3% impact on your company’s growth, right? That said, two counter-balancing forces exist: [1] pay equity interests and [2] a desire to show recognition to as large a cohort of employees as possible. There is no free lunch in life–just tradeoffs. Pick your compensation strategy wisely and acknowledge the pros and cons of each decision you make. Lastly, I’ll note that salary raises are only one way to award compensation recognition to top performers. You can also leverage STI and LTI programs. ______________ 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗛𝗥 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀: Compare your company’s median raise amounts for each of the categories shown in the attached screenshot as a simple way to tangibly gauge where you currently sit on the “peanut butter” vs. “pay for performance” spectrum. #pave #payforperformance #payequity #benchmarks

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿𝘀? Identifying and developing high-potential employees and underperformers is very important for any company. Yet, it is still challenging to determine who is a performer and who is not with exact data. The 𝟵-𝗕𝗼𝘅 𝗚𝗿𝗶𝗱 is a good tool that helps assess your talent pool based on performance and potential, which I have used for some time now. The 9-Box Grid is a 3x3 matrix that draws performance (current job effectiveness) on the X-axis and potential (ability to grow into higher roles) on the Y-axis. Each box represents a combination of performance and potential levels. How can we use it? 𝟭. 𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮: Clearly outline what high performance and potential mean for your organization. For example, they can refer to Strategic thinking, adaptability, and the ability to inspire others for more senior roles (staff+). 𝟮. 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲𝘀: Gather data from performance reviews, feedback, and observations. 𝟯. 𝗣𝗹𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗿𝗶𝗱: Place each employee in the appropriate box. For example, an employee who meets targets but lacks initiative might be in the Moderate Performance/Low Potential box. 𝟰. 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻: 🔹 High Performance/High Potential: Fast-track for leadership roles; provide challenging projects. 🔹 High Performance/Low Potential: Recognize and reward; keep them engaged in their expertise. 🔹 Low Performance/High Potential: Offer coaching and training to unlock potential. 𝟱. 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 Schedule periodic reviews to assess progress and adjust development plans as needed. For example, review employee performance after six months to determine if coaching has improved their skills. Of course, the most tricky situation is with inconsistent and influential performers; they are good but need to be better and may have some potential. We can deal with that by creating a performance improvement plan (PIP) with personal roadblocks and skills required to work on. What is essential here is repetition, i.e., often repeating what needs to be done and not being afraid to make it uncomfortable when necessary. 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘄𝗸𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺. Back to you, which framework do you use to deal with the performance of your employees? Image: AIHR #technology #softwareengineering #management #techworldwithmilan #leadership

“What does success look like?” is the wrong question. This is the new buzz phrase but it’s really a superficial way to investigate and understand the real needs. Having successfully implemented KPI and OKR methodologies in the past, here’s a framework that will get you of the rut and into productive mode. Instead of picking either or, create a lean combo of both. Let’s associate business goals + motivation and longterm vision with numbers + performance evaluation + attainable results. 💼 Executives define the big goals and aspirations. If this is your first time, pick 3 big goals for the proof-of-concept. For an outsourcing company I’ll pick: Ob1. Deliver excepcional experience throughout the staffing process. Ob2. Build a recognizable brand - people see our logo and they know who we are Ob3. Boost employee engagement and alignment with our mission This is our “what success looks like” bit. Now, for each of these, translate the goal into 3-5 key results that will show you the company is on track to achieve the goal. For objective #1, here are a few possible key results: KR1: Reduce average time to submit qualified candidates by 30%. KR2: Reduce rejection by resume rate by 50%. KR3: Achiece a CSAT of 90%. KR4: Increase the Job Opening X Position staffed successfully to 80%. Those sound great! Now we can measure what looks good and takes us close to our dreams! 🤩 ❓But how does the team translate each of these into actionable and measurable activities on their day to day? ❓ It’s time to get managers involved, pull some reports with real historic data and get the performance indicators to support our plans. Your individual contributors will need milestones and tangible numbers to keep their efforts focused and to prioritize activities. 🔔Bonus track: if everything is P1, nothing is P1.🔔 Let’s work on KPIs for KR1: KPI1-01: requisition response of 4 business hours. Since the request comes in to the JO creation, the limit is 4h. KPI1-02: sourcing time per role 20% lower than previous quarter. If never measured, benchmark and create a range for this first trial. KPI01-03: QA and resume prep team have 24h (except for weekends and holidays) to review the candidates, groom them and send them to the next stage. KPI01-04: tool adoption, 100% of activities and team members need to occur inside the ATS. Every log, every move. 💡Note how this is shared by different teams and stakeholders and it creates a net of responsibility rather than a hot potato being tossed around. 💡Every single person needs to understand their part and, they’re also able to help push their colleagues when they see an SLA is about to blow up. 💡People always know how they’re performing, where they’re falling short and their manager can provide immediate feedback and support to shift things around before a quarterly review shows deficits. Share your challenges and hit my DMs. 📲

How We Hold 200+ Employees Accountable — With Zero Guesswork Most companies struggle with promotions, raises, and performance reviews because there’s no system behind them. Recently, I was in a room with entrepreneur CEOs generating over $1.5B in annual revenue, and I was surprised many still don’t have a consistent calibration process. At Lion Holdings with Patrick Bet-David, we calibrate our entire organization monthly, quarterly, and annually to eliminate bias and create clarity for every employee. Our evaluation is based on five key areas: 1. Effort 2. Attitude 3. Teamwork 4. Innovation 5. Results 6. It's a formula. Your monthly score feeds into your quarterly score, which feeds into your annual score. That final calibration determines whether someone earns a raise or a promotion. A system removes emotion. A system rewards performance. A system builds culture. If you don’t have a calibration system yet or want to refine yours: DM me and I’ll share practical tips you can apply immediately.

📈HR is evolving — and so should our metrics!! Gone are the days when HR was just about hiring and payroll. Today, HR drives business value — but only when we track what really matters. 💡 Whether you’re building a high-performing team or improving culture, your data should tell the story. 👉Here are key HR KPIs that matter across every stage of the employee lifecycle: 🔍 1. Recruitment & Talent Acquisition • Time to Hire – Average time from job posting to offer acceptance. • Cost per Hire – Total recruitment cost divided by number of hires. • Offer Acceptance Rate – % of candidates who accept the offer. • Source of Hire – Performance of different hiring channels (LinkedIn, job portals, referrals). • Quality of Hire – Performance and retention rate of new hires (after 3 or 6 months). ⸻ 👋 2. Onboarding • Time to Productivity – Time it takes for new hires to reach expected performance levels. • New Hire Retention Rate (30/60/90 days) – How many new hires stay. • Onboarding Satisfaction Score – Feedback from new hires on onboarding experience. • Completion Rate of Onboarding Tasks – % of employees completing orientation, document submission, etc. ⸻ 💼 3. Employee Engagement & Experience • Employee Engagement Score – From surveys (e.g., eNPS or pulse surveys). • Participation in Engagement Activities – Attendance/feedback from events, programs. • Internal Mobility Rate – % of employees moving to new roles internally. • Manager Feedback Score – Employee feedback on direct supervisors. ⸻ 🧾 4. HR Operations & Compliance • HR-to-Employee Ratio – Number of HR staff per total employees. • Policy Compliance Rate – % adherence to HR policies/processes. • HR Request Resolution Time – Average time to resolve employee queries. ⸻ 📈 5. Performance Management • Completion Rate of Performance Reviews – % of employees reviewed on time. • Goal Achievement Rate – % of employee goals/KPIs met. • Performance Distribution – Breakdown of rating levels (e.g., top, meets, needs improvement). ⸻ 📚 6. Learning & Development • Training Participation Rate – % of employees attending programs. • Training Effectiveness Score – Feedback scores post-training. • Learning Hours per Employee – Average hours spent in development activities. • Skill Acquisition Rate – % of employees acquiring new skills/certifications. ⸻ 🚪 7. Retention & Offboarding • Employee Turnover Rate – Monthly/annual % of employees leaving. • Voluntary vs. Involuntary Turnover – Who left by choice vs. termination. • Regrettable Loss Rate – % of high-performing employees who left. Which of the following HR metric do you track most closely? #HRStrategy #PeopleAnalytics #HRKPIs #EmployeeExperience #PerformanceManagement #Recruitment #LearningAndDevelopment #HRLeadership

📊 I built one more AI prompt here (I am loving it) and it will completely changed how we run performance calibrations. For our 2025 cycle, I needed something that went far beyond “crossing performance scores.” I wanted a system that could understand the full context of each employee before the calibration discussion even started: trajectory, salary evolution, tenure, promotions, merit history, feedback comments, and all past cycles. So I built a this prompt powered by 5 different input datasets: ✔ consolidated data for all 129 employees ✔ salary history and % changes (2023–2025) ✔ performance scores from 2H23 to 1H25 ✔ promotions & merit decisions across cycles ✔ employee tenure and time-in-role ✔ all qualitative comments from the 1H24, 2H24, and 1H25 review cycles ✔ and even the full HTML template for the final report layout The results are awesome! The AI automatically generates a complete individual performance report for each employee, including: • score trajectory and trend interpretation • merit/promotion history • salary evolution with annual percentage changes • tenure vs. expected maturity for the role • extracted & cleaned qualitative comments • and a consolidated, standardized narrative for calibration Everything is consistent and structured, across all employees. And the best part? It ensures every person enters the calibration room with context, clarity, and a full story behind the numbers. That means fairer, faster, and much deeper discussions. The think is that, AI doesn’t do the calibration, but it certainly transforms the way we prepare for it. If you are interested in the structure, logic, or approach, I’m happy to share more.