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

Most performance issues aren’t performance issues. They’re system signals. At executive level, the patterns are predictable. Performance doesn’t suddenly drop. It shifts when conditions change — often quietly, long before metrics reflect it. I’ve seen the same sequence play out across corporate teams: - People are undermined → confidence drops - They’re excluded → ownership fades - They’re overloaded → clarity disappears - They’re silenced → leadership stalls - They’re judged → loyalty erodes Then outcomes are measured as if nothing changed. And it gets labelled performance. It isn’t. Research from Gallup shows that at least 70% of team engagement is driven by the manager and environment, not the individual. Google’s Project Aristotle study reached the same conclusion: psychological safety — not talent — was the strongest predictor of performance. When safety drops, performance follows. Not because capability disappears. Because the system stops supporting it. Most leaders don’t see the shift happening. They only see the result. By then, the damage is already embedded. Performance doesn’t collapse randomly. It reflects the system around it.

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?

I've been in enough performance calibration rooms to recognize this pattern instantly. The spreadsheet says one thing. The business reality says another. Brilliant engineers labeled "needs improvement." High-impact professionals marked "not ready for promotion." Not because they lacked results. Because their work didn't fit the scorecard. Einstein captured it perfectly: Judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, and you'll call it a failure. Organizations need performance baselines. Absolutely. Without them, reviews become chaotic and inconsistent. But when baselines become your only measurement tool, you systematically undervalue people who create value differently. I've watched this mistake cost organizations millions in lost innovation and retention. One engineer I worked with unblocked integration bottlenecks across three teams. Revenue impact: $2M+ delivered. Her review? "Meets expectations." Why? Her systems thinking was labeled "not technical enough." Her collaborative leadership dismissed as "not assertive enough." The scorecard measured individual code velocity and stand-up dominance. It ignored ecosystem impact. She left six months later. Hired as a principal engineer by a competitor. The fish was redesigning the ocean. The review measured tree-climbing speed. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶-𝗟𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 This is how performance should be evaluated - and how you should present your work. → 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗟𝗲𝗻𝘀 ↳ What changed because of your work ↳ Revenue protected, risk reduced, time saved, delivery unblocked → 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗻𝘀 ↳ Who worked faster or made better decisions because you were involved ↳ Team velocity increased, friction removed, alignment restored → 𝗜𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗟𝗲𝗻𝘀 ↳ Problems you solved differently than others could ↳ New approaches, architectures, or decisions unlocked → 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗟𝗲𝗻𝘀 ↳ What stopped breaking once you connected systems or people ↳ Silos removed, handoffs simplified, value unstuck Before your next performance review: Document your work across all four lenses. Translate strengths into outcomes leadership already values. Stop defending your style - start proving your results. If this resonates and you are a woman in engineering: Join a community turning technical expertise into recognition. https://lnkd.in/gVHn_hmq ❤️ Repost to fix broken performance reviews 🔔 Follow Dima Abu-Khaled for personal and career growth insights

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.

Unbiased evaluation is not a process issue. It is a leadership test. One of the biggest mistakes managers make is this: they evaluate people through emotions, impressions, proximity, and personal comfort instead of evaluating them through performance, consistency, and contribution. And that is where organisations begin to hurt their real performers. A team does not lose faith only when poor performers are ignored. It loses faith when strong performers are not seen fairly. When appraisal becomes emotional, three things happen very quickly: The visible employee gets rated higher than the valuable employee. The outspoken employee gets more credit than the dependable one. And the manager’s comfort starts replacing the organisation’s interest. This is dangerous. Because real performers do not always market themselves. Many of them simply deliver. Quietly. Consistently. Reliably. If managers allow bias, personal liking, recency effect, or emotional reactions to influence evaluation, they do not just make a wrong decision. They send a wrong signal to the entire team. That signal is: performance alone is not enough. The cost of this is very high. You demotivate those who deserve growth. You encourage optics over outcomes. And over time, you push your best people into silence, disengagement, or exit. A mature organisation must build a culture where evaluation is based on facts, not feelings. On measurable contribution, not personal chemistry. On sustained delivery, not temporary impressions. Managers must remember: Leadership is not about judging people based on emotion. Leadership is about assessing people with fairness, clarity, and courage. Because when evaluation is unbiased, trust goes up. When trust goes up, performance goes up. And when performance goes up, the organisation wins. Real performers do not need sympathy. They need fairness. #Leadership #PerformanceManagement #PeopleLeadership #ManagerEffectiveness #FairEvaluation #TalentManagement #LeadershipMatters #ExecutionCulture

Most boards have one untouchable person. It might be killing your governance. Is it the Board Chair? We constantly scrutinise CEO performance. But the Chair? A polite nod and we move on. What does effective evaluation of the Chair look like? Three core elements: 1. Meeting leadership - facilitating real debate, not imposing views or letting the loudest voices dominate. 2. Strategic oversight - keeping the board focused on strategy, governance, and long-term resilience not operations. 3. Culture setting - curiosity and dissent are valued, high standards of discussion are enabled, and the quality of decisions is assured. Many boards skip the Chair evaluation entirely. The governance committee gives the Chair a pass (and sometimes a bonus) after an informal and unstructured discussion. Independent directors, who are not on the governance committee, stay quiet. As an individual director (who might also be independent), you have a fiduciary duty to assess whether your Chair is effective. Chairs should also volunteer to be evaluated in a structured and formal process. Here are the key questions to ask yourself: Does your Chair create space for genuine debate, or do they steer the conversation towards predetermined outcomes? Is your Chair actively engaged between meetings, or are they a presence only in the boardroom? Can you share a dissenting view without concern for professional consequences or strained relationships? Does your Chair address underperformance directly, or do problematic behaviours persist because confrontation is avoided? Is the balance between strategy and operations clear, or does your Chair allow the board to drift into management territory? These questions reflect how boards function or fail. If your answers reveal gaps, you have options: - raise concerns privately with the senior independent director or governance committee chair, or - document patterns and request a formal 360-degree evaluation, or - build consensus amongst directors who share your observations. If none of these approaches work, you must ask yourself whether you can continue serving on a board with a Chair who is not evaluated. The best boards rigorously assess their own leadership, starting with the Chair, sometimes more than once a year. When was the last time your board had a real conversation about your Chair's effectiveness?

We praise performance in leadership. But we rarely ask how it’s being sustained. In professional sport, no one expects athletes to perform without a training block, recovery cycle, and a coach tracking every ounce of energy spent. But in executive leadership? We’ve built a culture that glorifies output and quietly erodes the human behind it. That’s why I believe: CEOs should train like athletes not work like machines. McKinsey & Company’s study on executive energy found that the average CEO spends over 72% of their time in reactive, fragmented activity and less than 10% in strategic, focused thinking. Another HBR report shows that leaders who ignore recovery cycles are 3.4x more likely to experience decision fatigue and 2.8x more likely to lose emotional regulation under pressure. In sport, this would never happen. Because we understand that performance is a byproduct of four things: → Deliberate training → Feedback loops → Energy management → Intentional recovery When I coach leaders today, these four principles remain unchanged, only the arena is different. Here’s how I translate them into executive practice: 1. Training > Talent In sport, we don’t trust potential, we measure repetition. → In business: daily leadership reps matter. Are you actively practicing strategic focus, emotional regulation, and alignment conversations? Or hoping they show up when needed? 2. Recovery > Grind Elite athletes sleep, stretch, decompress. Not as luxury as fuel. → In leadership: if you’re scheduling back-to-back 10-hour days without mental recovery, you’re not proving toughness, you’re burning signal clarity. 3. Feedback > Praise In hockey, you get film breakdowns, not compliments. → In business: how often are you getting real coaching on how you show up, how you lead under pressure, how you communicate when stakes rise? 4. Systems > Hustle Athletes have systems for nutrition, mindset, game-day flow. → Leaders need the same: systems for focus, decision pacing, conflict response, and post-pressure decompression. Sustainable leadership comes from preparing deeper. And just like sport, your ability to lead at a high level over time has less to do with your natural instincts and everything to do with how well you’ve trained your habits, energy, and focus. If you led like a high-performance athlete, what would you change first? #GeorgeDupont #ExecutivePerformance #LeadershipTraining #CEOHabits #McKinsey #MentalToughness

I won’t use names — but if your assessment firm proudly skips psychometrics, they’re not elite. They’re outdated Some well-known and high-priced shops love to brag that they don’t use psychometrics. “The tools don’t predict executive performance,” they’ll say — smugly, as if that settles the debate. And sure, they’re 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵. Psychometrics don’t predict performance outcomes. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗿. 𝗘𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀. • How they lead teams. • How they respond to stress. • How they navigate ambiguity. • How they manage conflict. But hey — why let data ruin a perfectly polished narrative? Let’s be clear: • Interviews can be performance theater. • Resumes can be fiction. • References can be selective storytelling. • But skipping psychometrics? That’s malpractice in slow motion. If you're assessing leaders in private equity — or any high-stakes environment — your process needs to assess more than just polish and pedigree. I’ve had the privilege of learning from some of the best in this business — including close colleague Ted Bililies, Ph.D. , who’s helped shape the standard for assessing leadership in complex, high-stakes environments. If you’re serious about getting it right, your assessment process needs to include: • A robust role profile (not a generic job description)  • Behavioral interviews that actually push • On/off-list references that actually probe • And yes — 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 psychometric tools Leadership decisions deserve the same rigor as capital allocation. Gut feel is not a strategy. Holistic assessment is. #PrivateEquity #LeadershipAssessment #ExecutiveSearch #PEDeals #ValueCreation #LeadershipDevelopment #TalentStrategy #ExecutiveLeadership #PortfolioCompanies #PsychometricTesting