Performance review templates
Manager review form template for assessing direct reports, with completed examples
The form a line manager completes for each direct report at any review point — annual, mid-year or end of probation — with the employee’s self-rating beside the manager’s on every row, the evidence, a proposed rating and three completed examples.
By the CLEAR Talent team
The manager review form is where the manager’s judgement is written down: a rating for each goal and competency, the evidence behind it and an overall rating proposed for calibration. It is the form most likely to be questioned later, so it is the one that most needs to show its working.
This template sets the employee’s self-rating beside the manager’s on every row, which makes disagreements visible before the meeting rather than during it. It works for any review point — annual, mid-year, end of project or end of probation — and has a recommendation field for probation reviews. A form on which employees rate their own manager is a different thing: that is upward feedback, collected with the 360 feedback form.
Before you write
What a defensible manager review shows
A manager review is defensible when someone who was not in the room — HR, a calibration panel, the employee a year later — can follow how each rating was reached. Three habits get it there.
Three habits
Read every input first
The self-assessment, any 360 results, check-in notes and goal records come before the first rating. List what you read on the form, so the reader knows what the rating rests on.
Explain every difference of a full level
Where your rating differs from the employee’s by a full point on the scale, say what you saw that they did not, or which of their claims the evidence does not support.
Propose, then calibrate
Mark the overall rating as proposed. If ratings are compared across teams before they are final, the employee should hear the calibrated rating, not one that may still change.
End of probation
Using the form for a probation review
A probation review asks a narrower question than an annual review: has the new starter shown they can do the job to the standard it requires? The same form works with three adjustments. Rate against the standard expected at the end of probation, not that of an experienced colleague. Take the evidence from the probation period alone, including the check-ins held during it. And complete the recommendation field: confirm, extend with a reason and a new end date, or do not confirm.
A decision not to confirm should never be the first the employee hears of a problem; if the check-ins raised no concerns, the form is the wrong place to raise them. Probation terms depend on the contract and local employment law, so take HR or legal advice before extending or ending a probation.
The manager review form template
Template
Manager review form
Fill in the details, copy the employee’s self-ratings into the rows, then add your own rating and evidence for each. Propose the overall rating last.
| Field | What to write |
|---|---|
| Review details | |
| Employee and role | Name, job title, team and the level the role is reviewed against. |
| Review type and period | Annual, mid-year, end of project or end of probation, with the dates covered. |
| Inputs read | What you read before rating: the self-assessment, 360 results, check-in notes and goal records. |
| Where we differ | Each row where your rating and the employee’s are a full level apart, and why. |
| Proposed overall rating | Weighed from the rows rather than averaged, and marked as proposed until any calibration is complete. |
| Recommendation (probation reviews only) | Confirm, extend with the reason and a new end date, or do not confirm. Leave blank for other reviews. |
| Development actions | One or two actions for the next period, each with the support you will give. |
| For each review area (up to 6) | |
| Goal or competency | From the goals agreed for the period or the role profile, with the measure or level expected. |
| Employee’s rating | Copied as written from their self-assessment. |
| Manager’s rating | Your rating on the same scale, for this row only. |
| Evidence | Specific examples from the period — what happened, when and the result — and where 360 input or check-in notes support it. |
As a spreadsheet
One row per review area. Copy the grid below and paste it into the first cell of a spreadsheet, or download the CSV.
| # | Goal or competency | Employee’s rating | Manager’s rating | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||
| 2 | ||||
| 3 | ||||
| 4 | ||||
| 5 | ||||
| 6 |
Show the plain-text template
MANAGER REVIEW FORM Employee and role: Review type and period: Inputs read: Where we differ: Proposed overall rating: Recommendation (probation reviews only): Development actions: REVIEW AREA 1 Goal or competency: Employee’s rating: Manager’s rating: Evidence: REVIEW AREA 2 Goal or competency: Employee’s rating: Manager’s rating: Evidence: REVIEW AREA 3 Goal or competency: Employee’s rating: Manager’s rating: Evidence: REVIEW AREA 4 Goal or competency: Employee’s rating: Manager’s rating: Evidence: REVIEW AREA 5 Goal or competency: Employee’s rating: Manager’s rating: Evidence: REVIEW AREA 6 Goal or competency: Employee’s rating: Manager’s rating: Evidence:
Nothing here is gated: the spreadsheet and the text file hold exactly the fields shown above, with six blank review-area rows. Change the fields to suit your process — the form is a starting point, not a validated instrument.
How to complete the manager review form
Allow time for the reading as well as the writing: most of the quality comes from the inputs.
Gather the inputs
Collect the self-assessment, any 360 results, check-in notes and goal records for the period.
Copy the employee’s ratings across
Fill in the employee’s rating on each row, as written, before adding any of your own.
Rate each row on its own evidence
Write the evidence first, then the rating, one row at a time. A strong result on one goal says nothing about another.
Note where you differ
List every row where the two ratings are a full level apart, with the reason, and plan to start the meeting there.
Propose the overall rating last
Weigh the rows — do not average them — and mark the result as proposed until calibration is complete.
Three completed manager review forms
An annual review where manager and employee mostly agree, a mid-year review with a real difference of view, and an end-of-probation review that extends the probation.
These forms were filled in for this page to show a workable level of detail. They describe no real employee or CLEAR Talent customer, and every figure in them is an illustrative placeholder, not a benchmark.
Annual review
Example 1: an annual review of a payroll specialist
The manager’s form for the payroll specialist whose self-assessment is the first example on the self-assessment form template. They agree on two rows of three; the form explains the third.
- Employee and role
- Payroll specialist, finance — reviewed at specialist level
- Review type and period
- Annual, January to December
- Inputs read
- Self-assessment, the monthly payroll error log, overtime approval records and two check-in notes
- Where we differ
- Accurate, on-time payroll: they rated exceeds, I rated meets. Error-free runs are the standard the role sets, so meeting it all year is a meets; the stand-out of the year is the process change.
- Proposed overall rating
- Meets (proposed, pending calibration)
- Recommendation (probation reviews only)
- Not applicable
- Development actions
- Shadow the payroll manager through the year-end close; write up the pre-approval checks for the team by March.
| Goal or competency | Employee’s rating | Manager’s rating | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accurate, on-time payroll: no errors reaching employees | Exceeds | Meets | Twelve runs on time and no errors reached employees, which is the standard for the role. Catching errors before approval is part of meeting it. |
| Process improvement (proficient) | Exceeds | Exceeds | Moving overtime approvals into the payroll system ended late approvals on payroll day, and the change now covers every site. |
| Communication with employees (proficient) | Meets | Meets | Payslip queries answered within two working days; the two autumn replies that needed a follow-up are noted on their own form. |
Mid-year review
Example 2: a mid-year review with a difference of view
A software engineer’s mid-year review. The engineer rated delivery highly; the manager’s evidence points to late features, and the form says so plainly so the meeting can start there.
- Employee and role
- Software engineer, platform team — reviewed at mid level
- Review type and period
- Mid-year, January to June
- Inputs read
- Self-assessment, sprint records, incident reviews, code review comments and three check-in notes
- Where we differ
- Delivery: they rated exceeds, I rated needs improvement. Two of three committed features shipped more than a month late, and both delays were raised in the week they were due.
- Proposed overall rating
- Meets (proposed; mid-year ratings are not calibrated here)
- Recommendation (probation reviews only)
- Not applicable
- Development actions
- Break committed work into pieces of a week or less and flag any at risk at the weekly stand-up; pair on estimates with a senior engineer for the next two features.
| Goal or competency | Employee’s rating | Manager’s rating | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliver committed features on time | Exceeds | Needs improvement | The search filters and the export feature shipped five and seven weeks late; the notification settings page shipped on time. |
| Code quality (proficient) | Meets | Exceeds | No production incidents traced to their changes, and reviewers on two other teams point to their pull requests as examples. |
| Operational ownership (proficient) | Meets | Meets | Took their share of on-call, and wrote one incident review promptly and thoroughly. |
End of probation
Example 3: an end-of-probation review that extends the probation
A warehouse team leader at the end of a six-month probation. Safety and the team are in good shape; stock accuracy is below standard, and the check-ins have already said so.
- Employee and role
- Warehouse team leader, night shift — reviewed against the standard for the end of probation
- Review type and period
- End of probation, April to September
- Inputs read
- Self-assessment, monthly stock-count results, safety records and five probation check-in notes
- Where we differ
- Stock accuracy: they rated meets, I rated needs improvement. Counts were below target in four of the six months, as discussed at the June and August check-ins.
- Proposed overall rating
- Not rated: this probation review records a recommendation instead
- Recommendation (probation reviews only)
- Extend by three months, to 31 December, to bring stock accuracy to target, reviewed at monthly check-ins.
- Development actions
- Run the cycle count weekly with the day-shift lead in October; use the stock-variance checklist on every shift.
| Goal or competency | Employee’s rating | Manager’s rating | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shift safety | Meets | Meets | No reportable incidents, and every pre-shift safety briefing recorded. |
| Stock accuracy | Meets | Needs improvement | Monthly count accuracy below the warehouse target in April, May, July and August; improving in September after the checklist was introduced. |
| Leading the shift team | Meets | Meets | Rotas published a week ahead, and no shift was left short by an absence that was not covered. |
From form to review cycle
Manager reviews inside a CLEAR Talent review cycle
In CLEAR Talent the manager review is the stage after self-review and 360° feedback, and before calibration and the final rating. Self-assessment and manager assessment are compared side by side, and a rating can require evidence — a project, a deliverable or an observed behaviour.
When the manager writes the review, Ava can draft the narrative from evidence already in the platform. The draft is labelled, editable and logged, and the rating stays with the manager.
The overall rating combines three streams — goal achievement rolled up from the goals set during the year, evidence-based competency ratings and structured 360° feedback — weighted the way your policy sets. Before ratings go final, calibration shows live heatmaps of ratings across managers and teams and flags outliers, so a rating that is out of line is discussed while it can still change.