performance ratings were treated like religion. Bell curves, calibration rooms, and long debates over whether someone was a 3.4 or a 3.7. Careers were shaped by decimals. Emotions were bruised by labels. Leaders felt powerful because they could grade humans like exams. Then we tried something that felt radical and slightly terrifying. We stopped rating people. We started measuring outcomes. And everything changed. In my career, I have sat in countless performance discussions where people defended ratings with passion and politics, but struggled to explain actual business impact. When we shifted the conversation to outcomes, the noise reduced and the signal increased.
The first thing that changed was the quality of conversations
Earlier, discussions sounded like personality assessments. Hardworking. Reliable. Good team player. Needs to be more strategic. When outcomes became the anchor, the conversation became brutally simple. What did you move? What did not move? Why? No adjectives. No drama. Just clarity.
The second shift was accountability
Ratings create relative winners and losers. Outcomes create absolute ownership. When someone owns an outcome, there is no hiding behind effort, intent, or visibility. The result is either there or it is not. I saw people who were quiet and invisible suddenly become stars because their outcomes spoke. I also saw charismatic leaders struggle because delivery did not match presence. Outcomes do not care how well you present in town halls.
The third impact was skills visibility
Ratings often hide capability gaps because managers hesitate to be honest. Outcomes expose skills in daylight. When a leader consistently fails to deliver cross functional outcomes, it reveals influencing gaps. When someone struggles to scale results, it reveals delegation and systems thinking gaps. One of our most consistent high rated leaders struggled when we moved to outcome based goals. Not because they were incompetent, but because their success was built on heroic effort and team overextension. Outcomes forced sustainable execution. That was a wakeup call.
We underestimated how hard it is to define good outcomes
Many goals were activity disguised as impact. Leaders wrote what they could measure, not what mattered. Teams gamed metrics because the system rewarded what was visible, not what was valuable. We underestimated how deeply managers were conditioned to judge people instead of enabling results. Shifting from evaluator to enabler required unlearning years of muscle memory. Some leaders thrived. Some felt exposed. We also underestimated the emotional aspect. Ratings, for all their flaws, give a sense of closure. A number, a label, a box. Outcomes are ongoing. They demand continuous dialogue. They force leaders to coach, not just score.
And then there is fairness
Ratings create the illusion of fairness. Everyone is compared. Everyone is ranked. Outcomes force a different question. Are roles equally designed for impact? Are resources equally available? Are managers equally capable? It is uncomfortable to admit that performance is often a function of system design, not just individual effort. The biggest mindset shift was moving from fairness to ownership. Ratings are about comparing people. Outcomes are about owning impact. This changes how people show up. They stop asking how I am rated. They start asking what moved because of me.
So was it worth it?
Absolutely. But only with one caveat. You cannot change performance systems without changing leadership capability. Outcome based systems amplify whatever leadership quality already exists. Great managers become extraordinary. Poor managers become painfully visible. This is not a framework change. This is a leadership transformation. The future of performance management is not about better rating scales. It is about better outcome design, better coaching, and braver conversations. If you removed ratings tomorrow, would your leaders know how to manage performance? Or would they just feel lost without a number. That is the real test. And that is where the future of work is headed.
These questions around outcomes, leadership capability and what truly drives performance are no longer theoretical. They are increasingly at the centre of conversations among HR and business leaders navigating rapid change. Platforms such as the upcoming Nextech Human Capital Summit are creating space for these debates, bringing together practitioners, thinkers and leaders to examine how performance, skills and leadership must evolve together if organisations are to move beyond legacy systems and design work that genuinely delivers impact. Register now to reserve your spot.
Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals.
Subscribe to Newsletter to get latest insights & analysis in your inbox.
All about industry right on your smartphone!
- Download the App and get the Realtime updates and Save your favourite articles.
