Placing CEOs on a PIP

Imagine a world where employees, not just the Board of Directors, assign performance ratings to CEOs and determine if they need to be placed on a performance improvement plan. The 2025 edition of Blind’s CEO performance review did exactly that. Following the precedent set by the anonymous professional network in 2023-24, when they first enabled verified employees to rate their CEOs, the recently concluded survey asked 3,545 verified employees across 42 companies to rate their CEOs on a five-point scale mirroring employee performance reviews: Far Exceeds Expectations, Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, Needs Improvement, and Unsatisfactory.

This approach stands in stark contrast to traditional CEO evaluations, which typically focus on metrics like shareholder returns, market performance, and board assessments. While sites like Glassdoor have long offered employees a platform to rate their workplace experience, Blind’s verified professional network – requiring corporate email verification – adds a new layer of credibility to employee feedback on executive leadership. And unlike Glassdoor, it does not delete reviews.

The survey results are now out, revealing a large gap between employee perceptions and company valuations. Nearly 40% of CEOs were rated ‘Unsatisfactory’ and deemed worthy of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) – a formal process typically used to address under-performing employees. This group includes high-profile leaders such as Andy Jassy (Amazon), Satya Nadella (Microsoft), Marc Benioff (Salesforce), and Jack Dorsey (Block), among others.

These poor ratings come even as their companies’ valuations surged 16% in Q2 2025, outpacing the broader market. Over 43% of CEOs fell below expectations, with only two exceeding them: Jensen Huang of NVIDIA earned the highest rating of “Far Exceeds Expectations,” while Hock Tan of Broadcom received “Exceeds Expectations.” Notably, Huang has been a consistent top performer since the survey’s inception in 2023.

According to Blind’s blog, decision-making quality emerged as the primary driver of ratings, cited by 50% of respondents, while company performance influenced 31% of ratings. The survey exposed particular dissatisfaction with recent HR decisions – only 10% of employees viewed actions like layoffs and salary adjustments as appropriate, while a striking 67% disagreed. Leadership bloat also emerged as a significant concern, with 44% of respondents believing their executive teams were oversized relative to company growth and workload, while just 26% considered the leadership structure appropriate.

Discontentment with leadership isn’t new news. At a September 11 virtual meeting, Microsoft’s Satya Nadella made an admission about his and his leadership team’s need for improvement – a rare acknowledgment that mirrors the survey’s findings. This raises a fundamental question: Do CEOs face the same performance pressures as rank-and-file employees, particularly during workforce reductions and controversial HR decisions? It also raises two other critical questions worth exploring.

First, should organizations take this survey seriously? Absolutely. While each organization has multiple existing channels to gather employee feedback, I am willing to bet that not a single one dares to ask employees to rate their CEO. Yet this single Blind survey probably reveals more about your current and future employees’ sentiments than any internal survey. The survey, while not grounds for actually placing CEOs on PIPs, offers actionable insights for improvement. Microsoft’s case is particularly telling – the timing of Nadella’s public acknowledgment of needed improvement, coinciding with this report’s release, may be coincidence but suggests that forward-thinking organizations should be paying attention to external evaluations such as this one. Also, his willingness to address shortcomings publicly and saying they will do better is a rare incident and sets a compelling example for other leaders.

Second, are the ratings balanced? As much as I like the idea of ratings, I am surprised to see only two CEOs go above expectations. With 40% deemed PIP-worthy, it seems unusually harsh. I have further doubts on the ratings, given Broadcom CEO, Hock Tan’s ratings. Broadcom has had volatile feedback on Reddit, Glassdoor and other sites from employees. Yes, both stocks have gone through the roof and are front runners in the AI race but what other factors got them where they are? What happened to say Pinterest? Under Bill Ready’s leadership, the platform distinguished itself by prioritizing user well-being and responsible social media use, introducing comprehensive parental controls and focusing on being an “inspiration platform” rather than a traditional engagement-driven social network. Yet such initiatives, which reflect important leadership qualities, might not factor into traditional performance metrics nor the ratings by employees.

More surprisingly, the skewed distribution – with 40% in the lowest category and only two CEOs above expectations deviates significantly from typical performance review patterns in most organizations. Standard performance curves typically place 10-20% of performers in top categories and a similar percentage in bottom categories. If we’re applying employee performance standards to CEOs, shouldn’t we follow similar distribution principles? Moreover, what defines “meets expectations” for a CEO? Without clear, comprehensive evaluation criteria that consider both quantitative metrics and qualitative factors like corporate responsibility, innovation culture, and employee well-being, these ratings risk oversimplifying complex leadership assessment.

The Blind survey offers a fascinating window into how employees view their leaders, revealing a significant gap between traditional success metrics and employee perceptions of leadership effectiveness. While boards focus on market valuations and quarterly results – metrics by which many of these “PIP-worthy” CEOs excel, employees clearly demand more comprehensive leadership. They seek leaders who not only drive business success but also demonstrate thoughtful decision-making, appropriate organizational scaling, and humanitarian approaches to workforce management.

While Blind’s survey shouldn’t replace traditional evaluation methods and was likely part-fun, part-seriousness, it highlights the evolving expectations of the modern workforce. The rare example of Nadella acknowledging room for improvement suggests that some leaders are beginning to recognize this shift. The real value of this survey lies not in its specific ratings (while they are still sources of information), but in its ability to spark crucial conversations about leadership accountability in today’s corporate world.