What's inside
- 360 rating instructions (self + manager + 2 peers)
- 1-5 behavioral rating scale definitions
- 6 scored competency sections (coaching, talent judgment, process/rigor, cross-functional influence, composure, track record)
- Weighted scoring formula
- Red-flag checklist that overrides the score
- Recommendation matrix (promote / promote with plan / hold / not yet)
For candidates and leaders evaluating a rep's first move into sales management. Fill this out as a 360: self-rating, direct manager rating, and 2 peer/cross-functional ratings, then compare notes — the gaps between raters are usually more informative than any single score.
How to use it
- Candidate self-rates first, in isolation, before seeing anyone else's input.
- Manager rates independently, using specific evidence (a call, a 1:1 the manager observed, a peer they mentored) — not vibes.
- Two peers who've worked closely with the candidate rate the "Influence Beyond Own Deals" and "Talent Judgment" sections only — they see things a manager doesn't.
- Compare scores in a live conversation. A candidate who self-rates a 5 where everyone else says 2 is itself the finding.
Rating scale (use for every row)
- 1 — Not yet observed / actively concerning
- 2 — Emerging, inconsistent
- 3 — Solid, reliable in normal conditions
- 4 — Strong, reliable under pressure
- 5 — Exceptional, others already seek this person out for it
Section 1: Coaching & Feedback (weight: 25%)
| Behavior | Score (1-5) | Evidence |
|---|
| Gives specific, behavioral feedback (names the moment and the technique) rather than generic encouragement | | |
| Has voluntarily coached a peer or new hire without being asked to | | |
| Can identify the skill behind a deal outcome, not just the outcome itself | | |
| Adjusts coaching style to the person, not a one-size-fits-all approach | | |
| Follows up on feedback given (checks if it actually changed behavior) | | |
Section 2: Talent Judgment (weight: 20%)
| Behavior | Score (1-5) | Evidence |
|---|
| Has an accurate, articulable read on teammates' strengths and gaps (not just "they're good/bad") | | |
| Has flagged a struggling teammate early, constructively, rather than staying silent or gossiping | | |
| Understands the difference between a skill gap (coachable) and a fit/effort problem (not) | | |
| Would be trusted by peers to give them a straight, private read on their own performance | | |
Section 3: Process & Rigor (weight: 15%)
| Behavior | Score (1-5) | Evidence |
|---|
| Keeps their own pipeline/forecast disciplined and accurate — a proxy for whether they'll hold a team to the same standard | | |
| Documents and shares what's working (playbooks, talk tracks) rather than keeping it to themselves | | |
| Has run or contributed to a process (territory design, a deal review cadence, onboarding a peer) beyond their own deals | | |
Section 4: Influence Beyond Own Deals (weight: 15%, peer-rated)
| Behavior | Score (1-5) | Evidence |
|---|
| Peers seek this person out for advice, unprompted | | |
| Has changed how the team operates for the better (a shared doc, a shared process, a norm) without formal authority to do so | | |
| Communicates in team settings in a way that lifts the room, not just themselves | | |
| Handles disagreement with peers/other functions (CS, marketing, product) constructively | | |
Section 5: Composure & Emotional Regulation (weight: 15%)
| Behavior | Score (1-5) | Evidence |
|---|
| Stays level when a deal falls apart or a number is missed — doesn't spiral or deflect blame | | |
| Has delivered or received hard feedback without the relationship breaking | | |
| Can sit with someone else's bad news/bad quarter without needing to fix it immediately or take it personally | | |
Section 6: Track Record (weight: 10% — necessary floor, not the deciding factor)
| Behavior | Score (1-5) | Evidence |
|---|
| Consistent quota attainment over a meaningful sample (2+ years, not one hot quarter) | | |
| Track record achieved without cutting corners (deal quality, customer health, team reputation intact) | | |
Important: Section 6 is a gate, not a tiebreaker. A 5/5 here with 2/5 everywhere else is a "great IC, not ready to manage" — promoting on Section 6 alone is the single most common and most expensive promotion mistake in sales orgs.
Weighted score calculation
(Section 1 avg × 0.25) + (Section 2 avg × 0.20) + (Section 3 avg × 0.15) + (Section 4 avg × 0.15) + (Section 5 avg × 0.15) + (Section 6 avg × 0.10) = Weighted Score (out of 5)
Red flags (any one of these should pause the decision regardless of weighted score)
- Takes credit for team/peer wins in front of leadership
- Only "coaches" people who are already succeeding; avoids the harder conversations with strugglers
- Track record includes a pattern of deal quality complaints from CS/onboarding
- Cannot describe a specific time they helped someone else get better — only examples of their own deals
- Views the move to management primarily as compensation/title progression when asked directly
Recommendation matrix
| Weighted score | Red flags present? | Recommendation |
|---|
| 4.0+ | None | Promote — with a 90-day onboarding plan and a mentor manager |
| 3.0–3.9 | None | Promote with a development plan targeting the lowest-scoring section first |
| Any | 1+ red flag | Hold — address the red flag directly with the candidate before any promotion conversation continues |
| Below 3.0 | — | Not yet — give the candidate this exact scorecard as their own development plan for the next 2 quarters |
How to use it
Collect self, manager, and two peer ratings independently, then compare scores live — apply the red-flag checklist before any score, however high, greenlights a promotion.