Establish 3 as the performance-review norm — close alignment with Bjorn and Greg

Situation

Peter established that a 3 on the 5-point scale is the expected/solid norm in performance reviews (not a 5), and closed alignment on this calibration standard with Bjorn and Greg, resolving a leadership split that had become visible to the org during the active review cycle.

Reasoning

A split review philosophy visible to the org is corrosive — Ryan read it as depending on who you report to, a 5 is achievable, which makes scores about the manager rather than the work. Peter eliminated the ambiguity at the top by getting CEO/President buy-in same-day rather than letting two standards coexist. 3-is-the-norm reflects Peter calibration discipline: solid expected performance is a 3, high marks reserved for genuinely exceptional. Timing was reactive (a packet-share had already signaled misalignment publicly) but decisive — closed same-day during an active cycle.

Additional Context

Surfaced by Ryan Smith DM flagging that a leadership packet-share had made a Peter/Bjorn misalignment visible. Same day, Mariah opened manager packet-sharing in Rippling. Individual personnel specifics deliberately excluded from this record.

Observed Evidence

Ryan (6/8): the message says that you and Bjorn are not aligned and depending on who you report to, a 5 is achievable... FWIW I prefer your approach, 3s should be the norm. Peter: 3s will be the norm. Just closed it with Bjorn and Greg.

Matching Patterns

Confidence Breakdown

Reasoning Depth Analysis