How to Improve Job Performance Reviews: Moving Beyond Meets/Exceeds Expectations
Dr. Quinn Denny | Published on 11/18/2025
What is job performance truly? Here, I hope to briefly outlay for readers reliable scientific insights from work psychology. The intent is to reduce your stress by expanding your understanding and skillset, whether you are a team member, a leader, or both. One of the many things that work psychologists receive extensive training in is how to measure things and analyze them objectively. Here we spotlight measuring work performance.
For all our advancements we still have mainstay outdated methods for performance forms. Having had the honor to work with multiple organizations to define roles and performance, I find this. Where performance review forms exist, performance review forms appear professional and definitive. The marketing departments have done a masterful work laying out a cognitively appealing form, with sufficient spacing, conservative use of colors, and bold headings with sections for rating. Yet, these forms lack true measures of performance, true objectivity. Objectivity is the ability to measure something as accurately as possible without the interference of emotions, bias, and faulty memory. These three mental variables drastically inhibit our perceptions and the decisions we make around job performance. To feel the breadth and depth of this influence glance at the Cognitive Bias Code Index (bias.wiki, 2025). The index certainly shows the challenge we are each up against in our pursuit to rightly assess performance.
Foundational to the measure of performance is minimizing our subjectivity (emotions, bias, and faulty memory). A few things on each of these here. Emotions are the result of framing. Framing is the way we think about things and produces the conclusions we draw from our thoughts. We can frame things in a way that produce negative or positive emotion. If our framing is poor (lacks accuracy) we are prone to make an inaccurate judgment resulting in poor decisions. Bias is a cognitive heuristic (mental shortcut) whereby we assume characteristics and behavioral intent (why they behave the way they do) of others based on people groups and individual characteristics. The most dangerous bias is unconscious bias also known as implicit bias. This is bias that interferes with our thinking (framing) without our awareness. The Cambridge Dictionary states this regarding unconscious bias, “Unconscious bias . . .can influence decisions in recruitment [especially recruitment], promotion, and performance management” (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d., [emphasis added]). Further, research has demonstrated that memory is not perfectly accurate (Bookbinder & Brainerd, 2016; Dandolo & Schwabe, 2018). In fact, eyewitness testimony is often hazy, something law enforcement and legal affiliates are very familiar with (Brehm & Kassin, pp. 517-523,1993). How then do we adjust and control for these commonplace cognitive shortcomings when measuring performance?
We must abandon subjective measures which are coupled by their corresponding one to five rating scales. An example includes the most common item found on performance forms, “Meets leaders’ expectations”. These seem like objective measures, but they lack specific definitive behaviors. Bluntly, what does it mean to meet my leaders’ expectations? What must I do exactly, how often, for how long? Without specificity (defined documented measures) our three subjective enemies: emotions, bias, and faulty memory are free to hamper us. How do we get there?
The process can be formidable but is actually a practical concept.
Define Tasks
Define every task of the role at an appropriate level. I jest with clients that we don’t want to be at the ground level, “Please take your jacket off in the morning and put it in your work locker”. We do, however, want to define each task in a way that captures every core part of the role. We do that by defining what a task is in a sentence or two. Anyone should be able to read our definition and have a concrete idea of what the task is and what it means to perform it.
Designate Task Importance
Next, give a level of importance to that task, is it critical (the organization stops if it doesn’t happen) or is it important? If the task is important, it adds value to the organization. If the task is critical the organization cannot function without it. Critical tasks should hold greater weight. If a task is not at least somewhat important it shouldn’t be included, it is a waste of effort and therefore a waste of resources like the organization’s money. Tasks we define should be observable, either while they are performed, or if not observable in real-time it must be obvious that the task was performed by observable results. We have to be able to observe and count instances of the behaviors or results that are part of the role.
Make Observable Tasks-Results Scorable
Turn the observable counts of a task into a score. Are we aiming for 80% to “Meet Expectations”? Is it 8 out of 10 times observed over the performance cycle? Is it so critical that it is a yes or no, 0% or 100%? It was performed or it wasn’t.
Group Tasks into Competencies
Group the tasks into competencies, these are tasks that fit into a theme like maintenance or finances, etcetera. Figure out what the top score is for each task. Figure out what the top score is for each competency (that group of tasks summed). Figure out what the total score is when summing all competencies. This is your overall average performance.
Define Performance Zones
Define performance zones, what score or percentage represents what kind of performance (needs adjustment, meets expectations, exceeds expectations). This process will allow you to discuss specific behaviors, allowing team members to know beforehand what tasks are measured and how those tasks are scored; and most important of all, how they get there, do them!
Benefits of Valid Performance Measures
Taking it to this level avoids scampering a day or two ahead of performance reviews to create a substantial and fair (objective) performance review by depending on faulty memory, bias, and emotion. It makes it possible to observe and document a data set (observed behaviors-results) representative of performance since the last performance review. It also provides the ability to have difficult reviews by reducing the stress of feeling unfair to those we review or being overly critical. Having competencies (a group of observable tasks) affords us the ability to dialog and highlight specific areas where we want to adjust performance to bring up scores as well as reward for areas of excellence. It is superior to our traditional vague categories which are not competencies and represent poor quality rating scales when they are rated against indefinite broad statements. Without doubt, some job role tasks are hard to measure objectively, like communication (interpersonal interaction). It can be done; I am yet to face a task that we could not measure in some objective capacity. Make each individual’s performance form visible to that individual in real-time, that way they have up to date scores by which to gauge their performance and inspire motivation. It avoids surprises and feelings of injustice and resentment. Subjectivity, ambiguity, and lack of predictability are the killers of job performance and job satisfaction and as such we need to do away with subjective measuring methods.
If you have inquiries or need help with any of these things: a professional Job Task Analysis, Scoring, or Performance Management System design, we are here for you! We couple collaborative creation of these with training for transformative outcomes.
Bookbinder, S. H., & Brainerd, C. J. (2016). Emotion and false memory: The context–content paradox. Psychological Bulletin, 142(12), 1315–1351.
Brehm, S. S., & Kassin, S. S. (1993). Social psychology (Second ed.). Houghton Mifflin.
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Unconscious bias. In Cambridge dictionary. Retrieved November 10, 2025.
Dandolo, L. C., & Schwabe, L. (2018). Time-dependent memory transformation along the hippocampal anterior–posterior axis. Nature communications, 9(1), 1205.
The Cognitive Bias Codex. (2025, November 10).