Evaluation Templates
A useful evaluation does more than rate someone, it gives the person a clear read on where they stand and a path to where they could be. These evaluation templates frame a review with the parts that get it there, fixed criteria to rate against, space for evidence behind each score, and room for goals, so feedback lands as specific rather than impressionistic. Start from the review that fits the moment, a manager’s annual, a 90-day check-in, a self-review, or a 360, and work through it.
An evaluation is most useful when the person reading it knows exactly why they earned each rating and what to do next. A score with no example behind it reads as opinion, and opinion is what people argue with; a score tied to a specific instance reads as fair and gives the conversation somewhere to go. These evaluation templates build that in by pairing every rated criterion with space for the evidence and comments that justify it, so a review documents performance rather than just grading it.
Which review fits depends on who is assessing whom. A manager rating direct reports, an employee assessing their own year, a new hire at the 90-day mark, and a 360 that gathers views from peers and reports each ask different questions and weight different things. These evaluation templates cover that range so the format matches the purpose, and the rating scales and goal sections give both the score and the plan a place to sit. Pick the review the situation calls for and rate against the criteria in front of you.
Worth knowing: Two common biases distort ratings. One is judging the whole year by its most recent weeks; the other is letting one strong or weak trait color every score. Rating each criterion on its own evidence, rather than from a general impression, is what keeps a review fair.
What a strong evaluation records
The parts that turn a rating into useful, defensible feedback.
Name, role, department, and the period under review, so the evaluation is anchored to a specific person and a defined stretch of time.
A defined scale, often one to five, with each level described, so a rating means the same thing across reviewers rather than shifting from one assessor to the next.
The competencies being rated, quality of work, reliability, communication, and the rest, each scored against the same scale.
Room beside each score for the example that earned it. This is where a rating becomes evidence rather than opinion, and where the review stands up if questioned.
A record of goals set last period and progress against them, plus targets for the next, so the review measures movement rather than a single snapshot.
The areas to grow and the actions to get there, turning the assessment into a plan the person can act on rather than a verdict they receive.
The reviewer's overall read, strengths, areas to improve, and a recommendation, drawing the individual scores into one clear picture.
Space for the person to respond, name their own challenges, and ask for the help they need, so the review is a conversation rather than a one-way judgment.
Dated signature lines confirming the review was discussed. A signature here records that the conversation happened, not that the person agreed with every score.
Running a fair evaluation
Working through a review so the feedback is specific and the ratings hold.
Begin with the type that fits, a manager's annual for a full year, a 90-day for a new hire, a self-review for reflection, or a 360 for all-round input. Each asks different questions, so the format should match the purpose.
Decide the competencies you are rating before you score anyone, and use the same set for everyone in the same role. Shared criteria are what make two people's reviews comparable.
Pull specific instances from across the whole period rather than reaching for whatever happened last week. Rating from notes kept over time is what guards against judging a year by its final month.
Tip — Keep a running note on each person through the period. A handful of dated examples does more for a fair review than trying to recall the year from memory at the end.
Score one competency at a time on its own evidence, so a single strong or weak area does not pull every other rating with it. Write the example beside the score as you go.
Draw the scores into a summary that names concrete strengths and areas to improve. A summary built on examples lands; one built on adjectives like dependable or proactive does not.
Agree development goals for the next period, then talk the review through with the person before signing. The discussion is where feedback turns into a plan, and the signature records that it took place.
FAQs
What is the difference between a self, manager, and 360 evaluation?
A manager review is one assessor rating a report; a self-evaluation is the person assessing their own work; and a 360 gathers ratings from peers, reports, and managers for a rounded view. The self and 360 formats here are built for those wider inputs, while the employee and performance reviews follow the single-assessor structure.
When should I use a 90-day review instead of an annual one?
The 90-day review fits a new hire at the end of their first quarter, where the question is how well they are settling into the role rather than rating a full year of output. Its goals and check-in framing suit that early stage, while the annual and performance reviews suit established employees with a longer record to assess.
How do I keep ratings fair across people?
Use the same criteria and the same scale for everyone in a role, rate each competency on its own evidence, and write the example behind each score. That combination is what makes two reviews comparable and what stands up if a rating is later questioned.
Should the employee see the evaluation before it's final?
Discussing it before signing is the norm, and the acknowledgment lines here record that the conversation happened. A review the person has talked through lands as feedback they can act on, and the signature confirms the discussion took place rather than agreement with every score.