A performance review template is a form that records one employee’s ratings, evidence and goals for a review period. This one is a free Excel workbook that scores itself from weighted self and manager ratings, plus a matching printable PDF. Both carry a 5-point rating scale defined by behavior, six self-evaluation questions and a goals table, for small businesses without HR software.
Performance review template (Excel)
An Excel workbook with six sheets: 1-5 rating drop-downs, formulas for each row’s points and the self and manager overall scores, a weights check, the rating scale, self-evaluation questions and a goals sheet.
Printable performance review form (PDF)
A three-page printable version of the same form, with blank rating columns, the rating scale and a hand-scoring line, for managers who run the review on paper.
Pick the Excel file if you want the score calculated and a record to reopen next period; pick the PDF for a pen-and-paper meeting.
In This Article (7 sections)
What’s in the Performance Review Template
The workbook has six sheets (Review, Summary, Self-Evaluation, Next Period Goals, Rating Scale and Instructions), and the Review sheet holds one row per competency or goal in these ten columns:
| Field | What to enter | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Section | Whether the row is a competency or a goal (drop-down) | Competency |
| Item | The competency or goal being rated | Quality of work |
| What Meets expectations looks like | The observable behavior that earns a 3 | Work is accurate and complete; rework is rare |
| Weight | The row’s share of the overall score | 0.15 |
| Self rating | The employee’s own rating, 1 to 5 (drop-down) | 4 |
| Employee comment | The employee’s evidence for the self rating | Rewrote the refund macro the team now uses |
| Manager rating | The manager’s rating, 1 to 5 (drop-down) | 4 |
| Manager evidence | Dated, specific examples behind the rating | Resolved two customer escalations without a handoff |
| Self points | Weight x Self rating (formula) | 0.60 |
| Manager points | Weight x Manager rating (formula) | 0.60 |
Sources: sample data, invented values for illustration, except the weight, which is the template’s default for Quality of work.
Eight rows ship filled in (five competencies, three goals) with default weights that pass the Weights check; four blank rows take extra items. The Summary sheet holds the review details, the computed scores and Overall rating, Key strengths, Development areas, comments and sign-offs.
Those ratings only work if everyone reads a 3 the same way, which is what the Rating Scale sheet is for.
The 5-point rating scale, defined by behavior
The five ratings run from 1 Does not meet expectations to 5 Far exceeds expectations, and each competency gets its own observable behavior per rating, because “exceeds” means something different for communication than for quality of work.
| Rating | Label | What it looks like |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Does not meet expectations | Falls short of the standard for the item and needs close direction |
| 2 | Partly meets expectations | Meets part of the standard; needs regular help or correction |
| 3 | Meets expectations | Does what the role requires, consistently, without close supervision |
| 4 | Exceeds expectations | Regularly goes beyond the standard for the item |
| 5 | Far exceeds expectations | Well beyond the standard; others use the work as the example |
Quality of work shows how the anchors read in practice:
- A 1 is frequent errors that others must fix.
- A 3 is accurate and complete work; rework is rare.
- A 5 sets the quality standard others copy.
The 2 and the 4 sit between, such as “accurate work that also catches problems before others see them” for a 4. The sheet covers every competency and the goal rows (1 not achieved, 3 achieved as agreed, 5 exceeded the measure of success). Two managers can still disagree, but each has to point at a behavior.
How the weighted overall score works
Each row’s points are its weight times its rating; the overall score is the sum of the points divided by the weight of the rated rows, rounded to two decimals. The Summary sheet labels the manager’s score with these bands:
- 4.50 and up: 5 Far exceeds expectations
- 3.50 to 4.49: 4 Exceeds expectations
- 2.50 to 3.49: 3 Meets expectations
- 1.50 to 2.49: 2 Partly meets expectations
- below 1.50: 1 Does not meet expectations
Weights check reads “OK” when the weights add up to 100% and “Weights must total 100%” when they do not, so a weight changed for one role cannot slip through.
A row left unrated drops out of the division instead of counting as a zero. That cuts both ways: a manager who skips the hardest row gets a cleaner score, so I would treat a blank row as a question for the meeting.
The self-evaluation section
The employee fills two columns on the Review sheet (Self rating and Employee comment) and answers six questions on the Self-Evaluation sheet, all before the meeting:
- What did you accomplish this period that you are most proud of, and what was the result?
- Which goal did you miss or change, and why?
- What got in the way of your work?
- Which skill do you want to build next period?
- What support do you need from your manager?
- What should you start, stop or continue doing?
The self ratings run through the same weights, so the Summary sheet shows a Self overall score beside the manager’s. The rows behind the gap tell you where the conversation needs time.
Goals for the next review period
Next period’s goals go on the Next Period Goals sheet, one row per goal: Goal, Why it matters, Measure of success, Due date, Support needed and Check-in date. Development areas agreed in the meeting belong here as professional development goals, and at the next review each goal becomes a Goal row on the Review sheet.
The measure is what makes a goal ratable. “Improve customer replies” cannot be scored; “publish a help article for each of the most common ticket topics” can.
How to Fill In the Performance Review Template
The manager and the employee complete the form in eight steps, starting a week before the meeting:
- Save one copy per employee per review period and fill in the Summary sheet’s review details.
- Set the weights for the role and confirm that Weights check says OK.
- Send the file to the employee a week ahead for Self rating, Employee comment and the Self-Evaluation sheet.
- Rate each row against the Rating Scale sheet, with dated, specific examples in Manager evidence.
- Compare the self and manager overall scores, and note the rows with the largest gap.
- Hold the meeting, starting with those rows, and agree on Key strengths and Development areas.
- Write three to five goals on the Next Period Goals sheet, each with a measure and a check-in date.
- Both sign off on the Summary sheet; store the file with the employee’s records.
What you write as evidence decides whether a rating holds up when the employee asks “why a 3?”. A specific comment names the behavior and its effect; a vague one restates the rating.
| Vague comment | Specific comment |
|---|---|
| Great communicator | Posts a queue summary every Friday, so the team lead plans cover without asking |
| Needs to improve reliability | Missed the handoff note on two escalations this quarter; the next shift restarted both cases |
| Strong team player | Took over a colleague’s refund queue during leave and wrote the steps down for the next person |
The steps read more clearly on a filled form, which the next section shows.
Example: A Completed Quarterly Review (Sample Data)
Here is an illustrative quarterly review for a fictional Customer Support Specialist, Jordan Lee (jordan.lee@example.com), reviewed by Sam Rivera; every rating and score below is invented. The manager overall score comes out at 3.80, which the bands turn into “4 Exceeds expectations”.
| Competency or goal | Weight | Self rating | Manager rating | Self points | Manager points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of work | 15% | 4 | 4 | 0.60 | 0.60 |
| Job knowledge | 10% | 4 | 3 | 0.40 | 0.30 |
| Communication | 10% | 3 | 3 | 0.30 | 0.30 |
| Teamwork and collaboration | 10% | 4 | 4 | 0.40 | 0.40 |
| Reliability and ownership | 10% | 5 | 4 | 0.50 | 0.40 |
| Goal: Reduce the first-reply backlog | 15% | 3 | 3 | 0.45 | 0.45 |
| Goal: Publish help articles for the top ticket topics | 15% | 4 | 5 | 0.60 | 0.75 |
| Goal: Train a new teammate on refunds | 15% | 4 | 4 | 0.60 | 0.60 |
Sources: sample data, invented values for illustration; the weights are the template’s defaults.
The manager points add up to 0.60 + 0.30 + 0.30 + 0.40 + 0.40 + 0.45 + 0.75 + 0.60 = 3.80; every row carries a rating, so 3.80 / 1.00 of rated weight = 3.80, inside the 3.50 to 4.49 band. The self points add up to 3.85, the same band.
The labels agree, but three rows do not. Jordan rated Job knowledge a 4 and Reliability and ownership a 5, where Sam gave a 3 and a 4; on the help articles goal, Sam rated higher. Those rows are the agenda: two need Sam’s evidence, one is recognition Jordan did not claim.
Had Sam left Communication unrated, the score would divide by 0.90 instead: (3.80 – 0.30) / 0.90 = 3.89, still a 4, on one fewer data point.
These default weights suit a support role; other roles and cadences need changes. If the person you are reviewing just joined, see my employee onboarding checklist for the weeks before their first review.
Customize the Template for Annual, Quarterly and 90-Day Reviews
Three changes matter when you adapt the form: the Review type on the Summary sheet, the weights, and the rows. The anchors can stay.
| Review type | What to change |
|---|---|
| Annual | Add goals in the blank rows and raise goal weights so the year’s results count most |
| Mid-year | Rate progress on the year’s goals and carry them forward unless the work changed |
| Quarterly | Keep two or three goals, drop competencies that will not move in a quarter, rebalance until Weights check says OK |
| 90-day or probation | Weight Job knowledge and Reliability and ownership higher, use one or two goals, add a Summary row for the decision: continue, extend or end |
| Peer or 360 input | Insert a rating column per extra reviewer; keep Manager rating as the column that scores |
When you rename competencies for a role (Sales activity for a rep, Code quality for a developer), rewrite their anchors too, and keep them observable: what the person does, not what they are. If the role has no written duties yet, open my job description template and write them there first. Changed forms fail in predictable ways.
Common Performance Review Mistakes
Seven mistakes make a review form unfair or unusable, and each has a fix:
- Rating from the last few weeks (recency). Keep dated evidence notes through the period so older work counts.
- One strong trait coloring every row (halo). Rate each row against its own anchors, not an overall impression.
- Giving everyone a 3 (central tendency). A 3 has a definition; if the evidence matches the 4 or the 2, use it.
- Weights that do not add up. Fix them until Weights check says OK, or the rows you meant to stress count for less.
- No self-evaluation before the meeting. Send the file a week ahead, or the meeting becomes the manager reading ratings aloud.
- Goals without a measure. Fill Measure of success, or the next review has nothing to rate against.
- Surprises in the meeting. A problem first heard in the review should have been raised when it happened; the form should record it, not announce it.
Past a handful of employees, the problem stops being the form and becomes storing, comparing and chasing a file per person.
Related Resources: When a Spreadsheet Stops Working
A file per employee stops scaling when you run review cycles for many people and need reminders, history and team-wide reports. HR systems with a performance module store cycles, feedback and goals in one place, and my guide to the best HR software for small business compares those systems side by side.
BambooHR lists Performance Management on its Pro plan, with 360º review cycles and 1:1s (BambooHR pricing). Its performance management page lists self, manager-to-employee, peer and skip-level reviews, custom review cycles, email reminders and performance reporting: the parts this workbook leaves to you.
Reviews are rarely the only reason to buy an HR system, so my BambooHR review weighs the rest of the platform before you upgrade for one module.
Rippling Performance Management runs review cycles, calibrations, goals and 1:1s, and lets people give and request feedback within Rippling or Slack, tied to its HR and payroll data. The Rippling review explains the platform that module sits on.
If neither fits, the BambooHR alternatives page lists other HR systems to weigh before you leave the spreadsheet behind.
FAQ
What file format is the performance review template?
The template is an .xlsx workbook, the Excel format, with the drop-down ratings and weighted scoring built into that file.
Is there a Word version of the template?
No. The Excel workbook is the editable version, and the PDF is the one to print and fill in by hand.
How often should I run performance reviews?
As often as you set goals worth rating. Annual, mid-year, quarterly and 90-day reviews all fit this form once you adjust the weights and goal rows.
Should employees see their self and manager scores side by side?
Yes. Showing both scores in the meeting makes the gaps the agenda, which keeps the discussion on evidence rather than on the final label.
