The self-vs-others gap is one of the most revealing signals in 360 feedback. High performers often score themselves lower than peers do. Struggling employees often do the opposite.
Performs360 surfaces this gap automatically in trend analytics so managers can have better conversations instead of just handing over a number.
Have you ever seen a surprising self-vs-others gap on your team? What did you do with it?
Raw 360 scores have bias baked in. A harsh manager drags down an entire team's numbers. A lenient peer inflates them. Post-evaluation calibration exists to fix this.
Performs360 has built-in calibration adjust scores after feedback collection with documented justifications, at team or individual level.
How does your team currently handle score calibration? Spreadsheet? Gut feel? Ignore it entirely?
Most enterprise review tools are built for 500+ person orgs. But we've seen 8-person startups struggle with the same feedback blind spots as Fortune 500s.
Performs360 scales from 5 to 5,000 team members same features, same encryption, same price (free).
When did your team start doing structured performance reviews? What triggered it?
