Solutions
All Resources
Discover "Me" · Work Personality
THE AI COACH THAT ACTUALLY GETS YOU.
Voice or text coaching built on psychology. For you, your team, or the candidates you place.
Hey Compono!
A coach that actually gets you.
Get 10 minutes free, then $15 a month. Cancel anytime.
Get Started ≫Problem
solving performance review phrases
26 phrases across four rating bands, for managers, coaching conversations and self-evaluations. Filter, copy, print. Free, no sign-up.
Start with the rating band that matches the person, then pick the voice you are writing in. Copy a phrase, then change the specifics so it names the real project, the real quarter, the real thing that happened. A comment that could describe anyone is the thing you were trying to avoid.
How these were written, and the five steps to a review that holds up ↓Found the actual cause of [recurring issue] rather than fixing its symptom for the fourth time.
Manager to employeeBreaks ambiguous problems into parts other people can pick up, which is why the work parallelises instead of stalling on them.
Manager to employeeKnows when a problem is not worth solving, and says so before the effort goes in.
Manager to employeeWorth writing up how they approached [problem]. The method is more transferable than the fix.
CoachingReady for the genuinely undefined problems, where the hard part is deciding what the question is.
CoachingI stopped patching [issue] and spent a week finding why it kept happening, which ended it rather than deferring it.
Self-evaluationI killed a piece of work that was not going to pay for itself, which was less satisfying than finishing it and much cheaper.
Self-evaluationWorks problems through methodically rather than reaching for the first available answer.
Manager to employeeChecks assumptions with the people closest to the work before committing to an approach.
Manager to employeeEscalates the right problems at the right time, with enough context to be actionable.
Manager to employeeSolves what lands on them well. The next step is asking whether the problem as handed over is the real one.
CoachingWorth slowing the first ten minutes down. The framing of the problem determines most of the quality of the answer.
CoachingI have started restating the problem in my own words before starting, which has caught two briefs that were asking for the wrong thing.
Self-evaluationI escalate earlier than I used to, with the context attached rather than just the alarm.
Self-evaluationReaches for the familiar solution before establishing whether it fits this problem.
Manager to employeeFixes tend to address the symptom, so the same issue returns in a different form.
Manager to employeeEscalates problems without the context needed to act on them, which moves the work rather than the decision.
Manager to employeeBefore proposing a fix, write one line on what is actually causing this. If you cannot, that is the work, not the fix.
CoachingWhen you escalate, bring what you have tried and what you think should happen. Escalation without those is delegation upward.
CoachingI move to solutions quickly, which is fast when the problem is familiar and expensive when it is not.
Self-evaluationI want to get better at telling the difference between a symptom and a cause before I commit effort.
Self-evaluationThe same issues have recurred through the year without the underlying cause being addressed or escalated.
Manager to employeeProblems have been escalated without analysis on multiple occasions, moving work upward rather than resolving it.
Manager to employeeWe need a written approach for the next three problems: what is the cause, what have you tried, what do you recommend. Reviewed in six weeks.
CoachingIf the constraint is time rather than method, say so, because those need very different responses from me.
CoachingI have been firefighting rather than fixing, and I have not made the case for the time to do the second.
Self-evaluationName the problem, what they did, and whether it stayed solved. The last part is the one that separates real problem solving from fast patching.
How these were written
Written, not calculated. Each phrase names a situation, an observable behaviour and its effect on the work. Bands run from exceeds expectations to unsatisfactory across three voices. The distinction the bands are built around is cause versus symptom, because the same issue returning in a new form is the most common and least noticed failure in this competency.
- Phrases are starting points. Name the real problem and whether it stayed solved.
- Outcome is rated over speed. The question is whether the issue came back, not how quickly the first answer appeared.
- Constraint matters. Somebody firefighting with no time to investigate is not failing at problem solving; they are being prevented from doing it.
- Written for Australian workplaces and Australian English.
- Unsatisfactory-band comments assume a dated record and a prior conversation.
- Fair Work Ombudsman, Managing underperformance (what a defensible performance record looks like), accessed August 2026
What to do about it
Problem-solving reviews usually rate the answer. The more useful question is whether the problem stayed solved, because that is the one that separates real analysis from fast patching.
Look at what came back
Recurring issues are the evidence. If the same thing has been fixed three times, it has not been solved once.
Check the framing before the answer
Ask them to restate the problem in their own words. Most weak solutions are strong answers to the wrong question.
Separate method from capacity
Somebody with no time to investigate will patch, every time. That is your constraint, not their capability.
Require a cause line
Before any fix is proposed, one sentence on what is actually causing this. If it cannot be written, that is the work.
Read the recurring problems as a set
A pattern of the same failures across a team usually points at a capability gap in how the team was built rather than at individuals.
A pattern of the same
failures is a gap.
Compono Develop maps what a role actually requires against what people can currently do, so a problem-solving gap becomes a specific development plan rather than an impression somebody has to defend.
Step 5 asks what the recurring problems say about the team. That is a capability question, and capability data answers it far better than review documents do.
Common questions
What are examples of problem-solving feedback?
Finding the cause of a recurring issue rather than fixing it again, breaking an ambiguous problem into parts others can pick up, deciding a problem is not worth solving before the effort goes in.
How do you give feedback to someone who solves the wrong problem?
Focus on the framing rather than the answer. Ask them to restate the problem in their own words before starting, which catches most of it.
Is problem solving the same as critical thinking?
They overlap. Problem solving is usually rated on what happened to a specific issue; critical thinking on the quality of reasoning regardless of outcome. If your cycle has both, keep them distinct or one becomes filler.
Can I use these phrases word for word?
Yes, with the real problem named.
Next step
Competency framework
The bands above are competency ratings. This is what a competency framework is, and how the levels are meant to work.
Read the definition →Related toolSkills gap analysis calculator
Reviews name the gap one person at a time. This one sizes it across the team.
Run it next →BuyingRequirements builder
Score the platforms you are looking at against the two risks, must-haves first.
Build the scorecard →Talk to usBring us your review cycle
A conversation about what your reviews are telling you as a set, not a demo script.
Talk to us →.webp?width=559&height=292&name=2026.07.21%20Fireside%20KV%20-%201200x627%20(event%20featured).webp)
.png?width=383&height=200&name=team%20(1).png)