A rating scale only works if every manager reads each level the same way. This guide explains the five-level scale used in the Performance Management Playbook, how scorecard answers become a grade, and how to write criteria that stand up in calibration. It extends the performance management framework. The detailed playbooks come from QuantumLight; Ash did not author them.
The five-level scale
The playbook grades each person as Poor, Basic, Intermediate, Advanced or Exceptional. Performance is first split into three components, each measured separately: deliverables (speed, quality, complexity), skills (role-specific technical competencies) and culture (company values linked to observable behaviours). Results are quantified into a numeric score, then converted to the five levels.
Writing level criteria
Example criteria for deliverables, from the playbook:
| Level | Speed (deadlines) | Quality (iterations) | Complexity (precedent) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poor | Usually delivers late and misses important deadlines | Output quality is unacceptably low | Only routine tasks done many times before |
| Basic | Usually on time, rarely misses deadlines | Acceptable standard, sometimes needs several iterations | Mix of standard and non-standard tasks |
| Intermediate | Always meets deadlines, often beats them | High standard, typically one iteration | Many non-standard tasks with few comparisons |
| Advanced | Very fast, habitually beats deadlines | Always one iteration, exceptionally high standard | Highly complex tasks with little precedent |
| Exceptional | Identifies important targets, beats deadlines by huge margins | Links any task to the business vision and designs the process to execute it | Exceptionally difficult work that needs radically new processes |
Write skills and culture criteria in the same style: observable behaviours at each level, not adjectives. Judge them against the talent bar for the person’s seniority (Junior, Mid, Senior, Lead, Director, VP), since a level means different things at different seniority.
From statements to a grade
- Managers answer true or false statements about observable behaviour in each scorecard. The questions are the same across the company.
- Answers are quantified into a numeric score.
- The score is converted to one of the five levels. You decide the thresholds for your organisation.
- The performance team calibrates the grades; see how to run a performance calibration meeting.
A completed example is in the performance review template with worked examples.
Three groups, with caveats
| Group | Playbook guideline weight | Suggested action |
|---|---|---|
| A-players: deliver well above the standard for their role | 15-25% | Promote and compensate strongly |
| Above bar: contribute steadily, room to grow | 65-85% | Develop; push some to become A-players |
| Underperformers: fail to meet expected standards | 0-10% | Exit or performance improvement plan |
These weights are the playbook’s own guideline, not an industry benchmark. See evidence and caveats for the published research on forced and capped distributions.
Mistakes to avoid
- No published bar. Without it, Manager A’s “4” and Manager B’s “4” mean different things.
- Ratings with no evidence. Each answer should carry a one-line note.
- Comparing people with each other or with how pleasant they are, instead of the bar for their level.
- Reviewing once a year. The playbook runs reviews quarterly; see why annual reviews fail.
Related guides
Performance management framework: scorecards, talent bar and calibration · performance review template with worked examples · how to run a performance calibration meeting · performance management software buyer’s guide · People Performance Playbook home
Free tools: estimate what your review cycle costs with the performance review cost calculator, or see if your HRIS is holding performance back with the HRIS switch checker.
FAQ
What rating scale does the playbook use?
A five-level scale: Poor, Basic, Intermediate, Advanced, Exceptional. Scorecard answers are quantified into a numeric score and then converted to the scale.
How do you stop managers rating differently?
Standardise assessments with scorecards of true or false statements about observable behaviour, publish a talent bar for each seniority level, and calibrate grades before they are final.
Should criteria be the same for every seniority level?
No. Compare people with the talent bar for their level. A Junior is not a Senior, so the same grade means a different standard at each level.
Do I need to force a distribution of ratings?
No. The playbook offers guideline weights of 15-25% A-players, 65-85% above bar and 0-10% underperformers, but these are its own guideline, and research on capped curves is mixed.
Where can I see a completed example?
The performance review template page has a worked example with goals, evidence notes, a grade and calibration notes.