Employee Rates Themselves Too High? How to Run the Review

What is going on when an employee rates themselves higher than you do

When a direct report's self-evaluation is higher than yours, the two of you are probably rating from different information. Instead of writing it off as a personality problem ("They overrate themselves"), look at where the basis for each rating differs. There are three main reasons ratings diverge, and more than one can apply at once.

• They were never told the evaluation criteria. Without the criteria, they have no choice but to use their own yardstick, such as how many items they completed or how much time they put in. You look at the criteria for their job level, so the same work can get different ratings.
• They never heard your assessment during the review period. You may be thinking "At this rate, it's a B," but if you don't say it, they won't know. They will take it as "Nobody has said anything, so things must be going fine."
• There is work you don't know about. They know all of their own work. You only know the work you have seen yourself and the work they reported or asked you about.

In KAKEAI's survey of 10,000 employees in Japan, among people who meet their manager every two weeks to once a month, 35.3% said they discuss performance evaluations in those meetings. It was 25.8% for those who meet once a week or more, and 67.6% for those who meet once every six months to once a year. The more often people meet, the less often evaluation comes up. Even with frequent meetings, many people likely haven't heard where their manager thinks their rating is heading.

In the same survey, 25.3% chose "I want to report to my manager" as something they want from meetings (up to five answers). "I want to hear your opinion" was 33.6%, and "I want specific advice" was 32.0%. Fewer people named reporting than named their manager's opinion or advice.

In Kakeai AI 1on1, KAKEAI's service that supports 1-on-1 meetings, employees choose what they want from their manager for each theme they pick before a 1-on-1. In 300,000 1-on-1 sessions extracted from that usage data, out of all themes chosen, 6.3% were "Work progress and how to proceed" themes where "I want to report" was chosen. On the same theme, 18.7% had one of "I want us to think it through together," "I want specific advice," or "I want to hear your opinion" chosen (both as shares of all themes). When it comes to work, the three that ask for the manager's thinking add up to more than "I want to report."

Work that was finished without problems may never come up in meetings at all. Before you finalize the evaluation, ask whether there is any work you don't know about.

What they say in the meeting is your clue to which of the three reasons applies. The examples below use a salesperson who rated their quote preparation an A, while you rated it a B.

How to run the meeting: what to say and ask in the first five minutes

In the first five minutes, we recommend this order: first share your current assessment as your own view, then ask what they based their self-evaluation on. If you listen to a long explanation of their self-rating and then say "Actually, I see it differently," you end up rejecting everything they said all at once, after the fact.

In KAKEAI's survey of 10,000 employees in Japan, the most common length for a regular meeting with a manager was 30 minutes, at 41.7%. If your review meeting is the same length and you start by listening to a long explanation of their self-rating, there will be very little time left to talk about the gap.

1. Look at the evaluation sheet together and share your current view.

2. Ask which work they based their self-evaluation on.

3. Tell them which work you evaluated and by what criteria, and ask how they see it.

4. Put both explanations side by side, and sort out together which of the three reasons the gap came from.

How to talk with them, and your first words for each reason

Adjust how you talk to the reason for the gap. The criteria and the mid-period assessment are things you didn't communicate, so start by owning that. But not having communicated something is a separate matter from the rating itself. Revisit the rating when new evidence comes to light.

When they were never told the evaluation criteria

Don't dismiss the yardstick they used. Explain the criteria for their level by translating them into concrete work situations.

Then spell out what earns a higher rating and connect it to the next period.

When they never heard your assessment during the period

Own that you didn't tell them, then share your current view along with the reasons.

If the final result may differ from your rating, tell them that too.

In a mid-period meeting, they may say something like "I can do quotes on my own now." We recommend sharing your view right then, instead of waiting until the end of the period.

In KAKEAI's survey of 10,000 employees in Japan, we compared people who meet their manager every two weeks to once a month, based on whether they discuss performance evaluations in those meetings. Among those who do, 37.4% felt "My meetings lead to work improvements or results," compared with 30.8% among those who don't. People who discuss evaluations feel their meetings achieve more. Don't save your view of where their rating is heading for the end of the period. Put it into words at least once a month.

When there was work you didn't know about

If work you didn't know about comes to light, it is your rating that needs another look. Admit you didn't know, and ask about the work in detail. If the meeting is before you submit the evaluation, you might say:

If the meeting is after the result has been finalized, tell them first that you can't change the result here.

Sometimes the work they mention wasn't part of this period's goals. In that case, thank them and then discuss whether to include it in next period's goals.

When none of the three reasons applies and you still disagree

Even when you have shared the criteria and your mid-period view, and no unknown work has come up, your ratings may still differ. They must have reasons for seeing it their way too. In this case, don't make it the goal of the meeting to get them to agree on the spot. Sum up in a few words where your views split, explain why your view hasn't changed, and then decide together what you will check over the next month.

What not to do in a meeting with an employee who rates themselves highly

What you want to avoid is any approach that looks for the cause of the gap only on their side.

• Asking question after question so they "realize it" themselves. Some advice says the manager should not state their own rating and should just keep asking questions like "Is it really an A?" KAKEAI does not recommend this. Only you know the criteria and your own rating, so no amount of questioning will draw them out of the employee.
• The opposite: ending after you have stated your rating and reasons. If you don't ask what work they based their rating on, work you don't know about will never come out.
• Making it about their character or personality. If you tell them "Try to look at yourself objectively," they won't know what to change next. Keep the conversation on which work was evaluated by which criteria.
• Comparing them with others to make them accept it. If you say "Other people get far fewer quotes sent back," they don't know the details of others' work and can't check it for themselves.
• Raising the rating without reason because they pushed hard. The reasons to revisit a rating are when work you didn't know about comes to light, or when you find something you overlooked. Changing a rating based on how hard someone pushes is unfair to the team members who accepted their ratings without a word.
• Ending once they say "I understand." A team member who says "I understand" because you nudged them doesn't necessarily agree.

How the meeting looks from the side of an employee who rated themselves highly

An employee who rated themselves highly has shown you, in writing and before the meeting, where their view differs from yours. It may be a self-evaluation you find hard to deal with, but it gives you something to talk about.

In KAKEAI's survey of 10,000 employees in Japan, 9.3% named "I can't speak honestly because I worry about how it affects my evaluation or how I'm seen" as a problem with their manager meetings (multiple answers allowed). A meaningful number of people hold back because they worry about their evaluation or how they are seen.

If someone writes a modest self-evaluation just to match yours, the difference in views never surfaces. With a team member who rated themselves highly, you can at least talk about that difference.

From the employee's side, hearing "It's a B" for the first time in the review meeting means they had no chance to learn their rating during the whole period. Based on its experience supporting more than 3 million 1-on-1s and its survey of 10,000 employees, KAKEAI believes both the manager and the employee are part of any gap between self-evaluation and manager evaluation. The manager needs to share the criteria and where the rating is heading, and the employee needs to let the manager know about work they have finished. Looking ahead to the next period, it often helps to tell them what you will do and ask for their help as well.

How to tell whether the meeting went well

Judge whether the meeting went well not by whether they looked convinced in the moment, but by what the two of you do afterward. Look back on these three points.

• At the end of the meeting, was what they will work on next period put into their own words (for example, "I'll check with you once before I submit any quote with a discount")?
• In the following month's meeting, did you share where their rating is heading, as in "Right now, here's how I see it"?
• Did work you didn't know about come up in meetings, without waiting for the end of the period?

In KAKEAI's survey of 10,000 employees in Japan, 61.3% of people whose manager meetings lead to action every time or almost every time felt "My meetings lead to results." Among people whose meetings rarely or never lead to action, it was 7.0%. People whose meetings lead to action are more likely to feel those meetings achieve something. In review meetings too, look less at the "I understand" at the end and more at whether each of you changes what you do over the next month.