Do people in leadership rate themselves higher in ability than their results demonstrate? The answer is dependent on the individual; however, my experience is the general answer is yes. 

I like objective measurement. Though we are not able to directly measure some items, measurement should help people see what they do well and identify areas that may need improvement. It is not easy to be a leader. With good skill development, they can learn to do a hard job better—but first they need to be able to accurately assess their own performance.

This subject came to the forefront recently when I was looking at some leaders’ ratings of their own skill sets. In many instances, leaders rated their skill sets quite high on a 10-point scale. This would make sense if their measurable results were above average to excellent. Matching their results to their self-assessment revealed serious disconnects. For example, most leaders gave themselves a rating of seven or more in their ability to select and onboard talent. Yet in looking at staff turnover in the first 90 days, the leaders’ results were not good. Even their one-ups rated the person higher than the results showed. It is hard for a top leader to rate a direct report as lacking in skill as it is an indication of their own ability.

This was further reinforced as I was reviewing some mid-year conversations. While the goal of these conversations is development, there were individuals in the mix who were performing below expectations. In reading the notes from the conversations, it was not apparent at all that there were performance issues. When I see performance shortfalls, I ask two questions: 1) Does the person have the desire needed to succeed in the role? 2) Can they acquire the necessary skills? Most of the time, the subpar performer’s challenge is the ability to attain the skills.

As I write often, I own two minor league baseball teams. The players have the desire. When they do not achieve their goals, it is because other players have better skills than they do. It may be easier in baseball to tell who is performing well (and who isn’t) due to very transparent measurement. However, most organizations also have effective transparent measurements in place, or at least the ability to put in the needed measurement if they choose; these include customer satisfaction, staff turnover, labor expense management, sales, resource management, etc. There are many effective ways to evaluate performance.

In closing, here are some suggestions:

Step 1. Before moving to skill development, take time to make sure the expected outcomes are clear. How will the outcomes be measured?

Step 2. List the skills a leader will need to achieve the outcomes. For example, if the goal is to hire and retain talent with a focus on retention in the first six months, what skills will the leader need to have to achieve that?

Step 3. Looking at the desired goal for the leader, document their current results. If this step is missed, it leads to people’s overrating themselves despite not meeting the outcomes. For example, a leader’s area is experiencing 36 percent staff turnover. The skill that they are rating themselves on is staff retention. With that data in mind, the person will be much more accurate in their self-appraisal of their skill set. It also helps them have a better conversation with their leader.

Step 4. Based on the skill assessment, create a skill development plan with timelines and milestone goals.

Step 5. Keep the person’s measurements in front of them at all times. If they are not performing, be straight with them.

There are those individuals who will struggle to take ownership of their performance when outcomes are not there. There are many others who will take feedback to heart and work to improve their skills. With specific conversations regarding subpar performance, there are three possible outcomes: 1) the person self-selects out, 2) the person improves and is no longer a subpar performer, or 3) the person is let go. In the last scenario, when we follow the needed steps, it is not a surprise. The person’s leader also knows they did their best to help them.

I hope you find this helpful. The more accurate your leaders are in assessing their own performance, the more motivated they will be to improve—and the better your organization will become.