You planned to close the laptop early, but a manager just sent you a performance review draft that says: “Great attitude, very committed, strong team player.”

No examples. No outcomes. No “what good looks like.”

And now you’re stuck. Because you still have to justify pay decisions, promotions, performance improvement plans, and sometimes exits, using language that would not survive a tough conversation with a CFO.

That’s the pain a competency-based approach is supposed to solve.

What is a competency-based performance review?

A competency-based performance review is a performance evaluation method where you assess how someone works (their observable behaviors, skills, and capabilities) against a defined set of competencies required for success in their role, level, or function.

Competencies are typically written as:

• a definition (what the competency is), and
• behavioral indicators (what it looks like in action, often across levels).

That “observable behavior” piece is not optional. Many public-sector and professional competency dictionaries explicitly define competencies this way and emphasize behavioral indicators as the performance “goal posts.” 

Competencies vs goals vs job duties (what you are actually rating)

This is where teams get confused fast:

• Job duties: what the person is responsible for (the work scope).
• Goals / OKRs: what the person is trying to achieve in a period (the outcomes).
• Competencies: how the person consistently operates while doing the work (the capabilities and behaviors).

A competency-based review does not replace goal reviews. It fills a different gap: goals can be unclear, moving, or dependent on external constraints. Competencies remain relevant even when the quarter is chaos.

The minimum viable components

If you want a version that actually works in real African organizations (tight time, uneven manager skill, inconsistent documentation), your “minimum viable” competency review has:

1. 6–10 competencies max for a job family or level.
2. Clear definitions (one paragraph each).
3. Behavioral indicators for at least 3 levels (entry, mid, lead/manager).
4. A rating scale anchored in behaviors, not vibes.

Why competency-based reviews matter (especially when goals are messy)

In many African teams, goals are real… but messy:

• The CEO changes priorities mid-quarter.
• The budget shifts.
• Sales cycles are longer than planned.
• Your “strategy deck” exists, but it’s not operational.

That means a pure goal-based review can punish people for things they didn’t control.

Competency-based reviews let you evaluate what the employee did control:

• quality of execution
• ownership
• customer handling
• teamwork
• analytical thinking
• communication
• leadership behaviors (for managers)

Business outcomes this method supports

Competency-based reviews are especially useful when:

• your quality problems are recurring (same mistakes, different people)
• customer experience depends on consistent behavior, not heroics
• you’re trying to grow managers faster than your company is growing
• you need stronger, defendable documentation for promotions and exits

In regulated environments (financial services, healthcare, energy, telecom), competencies also help standardize “acceptable performance” across teams, which is why so many regulators and public-sector orgs formalize competency frameworks for performance management.

Common mistakes that make competency reviews feel political

Here’s the part most competitor articles stay too polite about. Competency reviews can become a theater of “soft language” unless you design them tightly.

1) Competencies that read like motivational posters

If your competency is “Be innovative” with no examples, you have created a disagreement machine.

Fix: define it and list what behaviors count as evidence.

2) Rating without evidence

If a manager can’t point to an incident, artifact, metric, or customer outcome, the rating is noise.

Fix: require 1–2 evidence bullets per competency.

3) Too many competencies

I’ve seen review forms with 18 competencies. Managers stop reading. They give the same score across the board.

Fix: keep it to what truly predicts success in the role.

4) Halo effects and “nice person” bias

One strong trait (confidence, friendliness, eloquence) contaminates the entire review.

Fix: use behavioral anchors and ask for specific examples.

A practical method for anchoring ratings in behaviors is the logic behind behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS), which are designed to reduce ambiguity by tying score levels to example behaviors. 

5) No calibration

Different managers use different internal scales.

• Manager A’s “Meets expectations” is strong.
• Manager B’s “Meets expectations” is barely surviving.

Fix: run a calibration session (even a 45-minute one).

6) No development link

If the review ends with a rating and no plan, employees learn one thing: “This is for HR, not for me.”

Fix: connect competencies to development actions (coaching + training + stretch work).

Step-by-step: how to run a competency-based performance review

Step 0: Decide your scope and guardrails

Make three decisions before you write a single competency:

• Who is included? (all staff or just managers first)
• What is the review used for? (development-only vs pay/promotion)
• How often? (quarterly light check-ins + biannual deeper review tends to be workable)

Constraint acknowledgement #1: if your managers are already stretched, don’t launch a heavy process with long forms. You will get “copy and paste” reviews and everyone will hate it.

Step 1: Build or fix your competency framework

Start from role success, not HR theory.

A clean way to build:

• Interview 5–10 top performers and 3–5 managers.
• Identify behaviors that predict success (not just outcomes).
• Group them into 6–10 competencies.

Suggested competency clusters (common across HR and ops teams):

• Execution and accountability
• Communication
• Analytical thinking / problem solving
• Collaboration
• Customer orientation (internal or external)
• Learning agility
• People leadership (for managers)
• Values and ethics (if relevant, but keep it concrete)

Step 2: Define levels and behavioral anchors (this is where quality lives)

For each competency, define what good looks like at different levels.

Example approach:

• Level 1: foundational
• Level 2: solid/independent
• Level 3: advanced/role-model
• Level 4: leads others (optional)

If you want a public example of this “levels + behavioral criteria” structure, many competency frameworks describe exactly that setup.

Step 3: Design the review form (short, usable, evidence-based)

Your form should collect:

• competency rating (behavior-based)
• 1–2 evidence bullets
• 1 growth focus (the single competency to improve next cycle)
• an optional goals snapshot (if you run OKRs)

Constraint acknowledgement #2: if your documentation culture is weak, evidence prompts are not “nice to have.” They are your protection against future disputes.

Step 4: Train managers (lightweight, practical)

You do not need a 3-hour workshop.

You need:

• a 15-minute micro-training video or live walkthrough
• 3 examples of “good evidence” vs “bad evidence”
• 1 calibration practice case

Step 5: Run calibration (to keep ratings consistent)

Calibration does two jobs:

• it improves fairness
• it teaches managers what the competencies actually mean

Basic calibration agenda (45–60 minutes):

• Review the definitions.
• Each manager shares 1–2 tricky cases.
• Agree on what “Meets” means using evidence.
• Note any wording that is confusing and fix it next cycle.

Constraint acknowledgement #3: if your culture has high power distance, people may avoid direct feedback. Calibration helps reduce the “everyone is excellent” problem by making standards explicit.

Step 6: Turn results into development (otherwise the system dies quietly)

Competency-based reviews are strongest when they feed development quickly.

This is where tooling can matter.

In Talstack, teams usually connect:

• Performance Reviews to run the cycle without spreadsheet chaos
• Competency Tracking to define competencies per role and see patterns over time
• Learning Paths and Assign Courses to map a competency gap to specific learning actions
• Analytics to monitor completion rates and review participation

The key is the workflow: review → gap → learning action → follow-up check-in. No drama, just iteration.

Tables you can copy into your article or internal wiki

Table 1: Competency-based vs goal-based vs values-only reviews (when to use what)

Table 2: Example competency rubric (simple, evidence-based)

‍

Quick Checklist (before you launch)

• You have 6–10 competencies, not 18.
• Each competency has a definition + behavioral indicators.
• Your rating scale is anchored to behaviors (BARS-style thinking helps). 
• Managers must add evidence bullets, not adjectives.
• You scheduled a calibration session.
• You decided whether this cycle affects pay or is development-only.
• You have a plan for development actions (training, coaching, stretch work).

Copy-paste scripts

1) Manager script for the review conversation (10 minutes, no fluff)

“I’m going to focus on two things: your outcomes this period, and the competencies that show how you work.
For each competency, I’ll share one example I observed. If you disagree, bring your own example.
My goal is simple: clear strengths, one growth focus, and a plan for the next cycle.”

2) HR script to explain the shift to staff

“We’re adding competency-based performance reviews so expectations are clearer and feedback is more consistent across teams.
This is not about personality. It’s about observable behaviors that predict success in your role.
You’ll see definitions and examples in the form. You’ll also be asked to add evidence, so the process stays fair.”

3) Script to request evidence without sounding accusatory

“Can you give me one or two examples from this quarter that show why you chose that rating?
It can be a project, a document, a customer situation, or a metric. I just want to anchor it in something concrete.”

FAQs (the questions people actually ask mid-rollout)

Is a competency-based performance review the same as a skills assessment?

Not exactly.

• Skills are often task-specific (Excel modeling, payroll processing, ISO audit knowledge).
• Competencies are broader capabilities and behaviors (analytical thinking, stakeholder management, coaching).

Some frameworks explicitly separate behavioral and technical competencies, which is useful if you want both in the system. 

Can an SME do this without an HRIS?

Yes. Start with:

• a one-page competency dictionary
• a short form (Google Form or doc)
• one calibration meeting

Then upgrade later. Most teams fail by trying to digitize too early without clarity.

How many competencies should we use?

For most roles: 6–10.

If you need more, it’s usually because your competencies are too broad or overlapping.

Do we still need OKRs?

If you run OKRs, keep them.

Competencies tell you how someone works. OKRs tell you what they achieved.

In Talstack, teams typically run both by linking Goals to Performance Reviews, then using Competency Tracking to see whether the “how” is improving across cycles.

How do you reduce bias?

Three levers:

• behavioral anchors (BARS-style thinking) 
• required evidence bullets
• calibration

What does “meets expectations” mean?

It should mean:

• the person consistently demonstrates the behaviors needed at their level
• the work is reliable without constant escalation
• issues are handled with normal support, not rescue missions

If “meets expectations” is unclear, your competency definitions are not finished.

One next step

Pick one job family (customer support, sales, HR, operations), define 8 competencies with behavioral indicators, and pilot the review with two managers before you roll it out company-wide.