Talk About Meaning: Creating a Common Language for Performance

If it’s a windy day outside, how do you know the force of the breeze? If you have a weather App it might indicate the force of gusts in terms of miles per hour, but, in practical terms, what does an 8 mile per hour (MPH) gust feel like?

Before reading Scott Huler’s book, Defining the Wind: The Beaufort Scale and How a 19th Century Admiral Turned Science into Poetry, I never really thought much about breezes or gales. Being a child of the Midwest, as long as tornado sirens were not activated or lightning flashes seen in the skies above, we could generally glance toward the horizon and determine if we wanted to go outside or not. If we needed to go somewhere and the skies were grey, we might grab a raincoat.

Since reading about Admiral Beaufort’s scale over a decade ago, it has become a playful feature in my spouse’s and my conversations. If we look out the window and see smaller branches moving in the breeze, we know its likely a “Beaufort 3” which affords an easily understood, between us, meaning to a weather App-forecasted 8 MPH. That is differentiated from a Beaufort 8 when need to secure untethered lawn items and forget the evening walk!

Either way, meaning is created by mutual understanding supported by agreed upon definitions, in this instance definitions of the wind originated by Admiral Beaufort and his crew. Definitions, by the way, which are still used by the United States National Weather Service. Yes, there are limitations to a 19th century model based on careful observations of nautical events, yet the scale continues to inform in a practical, easy to understand manner.

In a similar manner, many organizations have a performance management system based on a standard 5-point Likert rating scale: 5 for outstanding performance indicating consistently delivered results; through 1 indicating poor performance and failure to meet role expectations. Senior leaders generally have input on the definitions and employees receive their annual reviews across a generalized continuum of responses ranging from enthusiasm to demotivation.

This is not an HR performance management problem; however. I would contend this is a leadership problem.

Creating shared understanding does not mean redefining standards to suit individual preferences. Organizational performance systems exist for a reason, including calibration across teams and functions. The leadership responsibility is not to inflate ratings, but to ensure that expectations are clearly understood, consistently applied, and grounded in observable behaviors. Conversation is not about negotiating a “5.” It is about reducing ambiguity so that performance discussions feel fair, rigorous, and aligned with broader standards.

When leaders assume the scale speaks for itself, they forfeit an opportunity to shape meaning. Just as an 8 MPH forecast tells us little about how the wind will feel without shared reference points, a “4” or “5” performance rating means very different things in the absence of a clear, context-setting conversation. Leadership requires stepping into that ambiguity, observing what is actually happening, and ensuring understanding. Without that effort, ratings remain numbers. With it, they become a common language for development.

Questions for Reflection

1. How frequently are you engaging employees in conversation about what strong performance looks like within the context of your team and the broader organization?

2. What steps are you taking to ensure that shared understanding strengthens clarity and consistency rather than creating confusion?