Try Incompass free for 30 days. No credit card required.
Start Free Trial
Tim Schantz, President and CEO of Troon, the world's largest golf and golf-related hospitality management company, had a decision he couldn't put off: which of his top 200 leaders could he actually trust to carry Troon's culture through a period of rapid, acquisition-driven growth. The tools he had, an annual review, a nine-box talent grid, and a broad engagement survey, gave him opinions. What he needed was evidence he could act on.
Troon (https://troon.com/) built its reputation on a culture of service, the belief that people with a real service orientation, aligned to the company's values, are what separates a well-run facility from an exceptional one. That culture was a competitive advantage for years. But growth through acquisition introduced a familiar problem: every company that joined Troon brought its own norms and expectations. Culture stopped happening organically and had to be actively managed.
"If you grow, whether organically or inorganically, meaning buying things, the culture can get diluted."
— Tim Schantz, President & CEO, Troon
Troon is now PE-backed, operating under the same expectations that come with institutional ownership: disciplined execution, clear accountability, measurable improvement across every portco under management. Tim's question was how to maintain the culture that built Troon's success while scaling at the pace a PE timeline demands.
Troon was already running the usual playbook, and each piece had value, but none had teeth. The annual review was backward-looking and slow. The nine-box produced results shaped as much by relationship dynamics and personal advocacy as by actual performance; leaders argued for their people, and outcomes came out, in Tim's words, "a little bit colored." The engagement survey told him people felt under-resourced, but not who was causing it or where.
None of these tools could tell Tim whether the people driving results were the ones he thought they were, or whether Troon's values were actually being lived across 35,000 associates in hundreds of locations.
"I've never been a real fan of the traditional review process. I feel like that process doesn't always answer all the questions you're looking to answer, and it doesn't happen in real time."
— Tim Schantz
Troon launched Incompass across its top 200 corporate employees, from senior directors through the officer group, and ran it in parallel with the existing Gallup survey and nine-box review, deliberately keeping the three processes separate so neither could influence the other. Tim and his CHRO reviewed the Incompass results on their own, building an aggregate ranking across five assessed behaviors. Only after the nine-box review came back did he hold the two outputs side by side to see where they agreed and where they diverged.
[Image: Troon North Golf Club, North Scottsdale, AZ]
The correlation, in Tim's words, was "uncanny." Every person placed in the lowest nine-box category also landed in the bottom 10 percent on Incompass. Every person in the top nine-box tier landed in the top 20 percent, including the 25 people Tim had privately identified beforehand as Troon's best performers. Incompass confirmed not just who was performing, but how broadly they were regarded across the organization, regardless of function or reporting line.
"Every time, every single time, the people that were in the least positive box were at the lowest level in Incompass. To have a non-biased tool that correlated exactly with what could be a more biased situation... it really opened my eyes."
— Tim Schantz
That correlation is what made the rest of the decisions possible.
Where the nine-box fell short and Incompass held up. In the nine-box room, placements shifted based on who spoke up and how forcefully. The people who ultimately landed correctly on the grid got there only after a lot of give and take, in Tim's words, "a lot of angst." When asked directly whether some of those people could have been moved up the grid without Incompass data as backup, Tim's answer was yes.
A self-awareness gap that pointed to who to watch. One of the most useful findings was the gap between how people rated themselves and how peers and managers rated them. Top performers consistently rated themselves lower than others did. The reverse pattern, people who rated themselves highly while everyone else rated them poorly, tracked directly with underperformance. That gap gave Tim an early read he hadn't had before.
Participation itself turned out to be informative. How much someone engaged with the process, both giving and receiving reviews, correlated with performance. Top performers gave and received the most reviews. Underperformers gave few or none, and often avoided the tool altogether.
A view of culture that crossed reporting lines. The traditional review only captures performance within a reporting line. Incompass captured how people showed up across the organization, what Tim described as the difference between how someone performs in front of their manager and "how you show up when your manager's not in the room."
After the run, Tim personally met with the top 25 percent of scorers, one on one, not to share rankings but to acknowledge their contribution and reinforce the behaviors he wanted to see more of. On the other end of the distribution, many of the people who scored at the bottom have since left Troon. The data gave leadership the confidence to act on what they already suspected and removed the friction that usually slows decisions made on instinct alone.
Troon is preparing for its second run, this time with AI-generated commentary enabled. Tim's goal is to run the tool multiple times a year and retire the traditional year-end review entirely, so the annual meeting becomes what it should be, a conversation about goals and compensation, not a surprise. He also sees potential at the facility level, deploying Incompass at individual clubs large enough to benefit from a cultural read, to prove that what worked at the corporate level translates to the field.
Tim has worked with five PE sponsors, and his read on how Incompass fits that context is clear. PE firms are mathematically oriented. They want data, not opinions. An anonymous, 360-degree behavioral assessment that produces statistically credible results on culture health and talent quality earns trust at the board and sponsor level, not because it tells the sponsor something management doesn't already know, but because it removes the subjectivity that makes talent conversations hard. Benchmark culture at post-close and you have a baseline. Run it again at 12 months and you have a trend line. That's not an HR output, it's an execution risk indicator a PE firm can act on.
Curious what objective talent data looks like in your organization? We'd love to chat. (https://incompass.io/book-a-demo)
*Incompass is the talent intelligence platform built so leaders can make talent decisions they trust and move on quickly. By gathering input from across teams and calibrating it with data science, Incompass delivers bias-adjusted, percentile-based insights that hold up under scrutiny and turn into action in days, not months. For PE-backed companies and their portcos, that means a clear, defensible read on talent from post-close through the hold.*
Talent decisions, who to promote, who to invest in, who to move on from, are among the most consequential calls a leadership team makes. At DealMaker (https://www.dealmaker.tech/), a fintech company that had grown past 120 employees, those calls were being made in a room full of exhausted people staring at a spreadsheet. This is how they changed that.
DealMaker's early performance process ran through Google Sheets with a lightweight 360 layer on top. It worked for a small team. As headcount grew, calibration sessions brought as many as 16 leaders into a room with a sprawling spreadsheet, and the results were predictably inconsistent, skewed toward whoever had spoken up most recently or most loudly.
"You get 16 people in a room, a giant spreadsheet, and exhaustion sets in. Our brains could only remember the last few people, and the process didn't feel statistically significant."
— Kara Wilson Oliver (https://www.linkedin.com/in/karawilsonoliver/), VP of People & Operations, DealMaker
Volume was solvable. The deeper problem was that DealMaker's existing system tracked outcomes, sales numbers, project delivery, but had no way to capture the behavioral qualities leadership believed actually predicted long-term success: adaptability and tenacity. Managers looked for these traits in hiring, but once someone was inside the company, there was no consistent way to track them. The result was a process that could tell you what someone had delivered, but not how they were showing up, or whether they were someone worth betting on long term.
"Performance management is non-negotiable. It's the founding layer for HR to prove itself as a business function."
— Kara Wilson Oliver
DealMaker needed something that would widen the input, correct for bias, and surface the behavioral evidence a spreadsheet couldn't capture. A few things stood out:
Broader, more balanced input. Anonymous feedback from across the organization, not just managers, gave leaders a fuller picture of how someone was actually showing up.
Bias correction built into the process. Incompass uses machine learning to detect rater tendencies, such as someone who consistently scores high or low, and corrects for it live, not after the fact.
Expert-weighted feedback. When someone recognized as an expert in a domain rates that skill, their input carries more weight, making the data more meaningful rather than just more voluminous.
Fast adoption, no training cycle. DealMaker doesn't invest heavily in software training, so the platform needed to be intuitive from day one.
"We're not a company that spends a lot of time on training, so I needed a system people could just get. Incompass delivered on that. It was intuitive from day one, and people immediately saw the value."
— Kara Wilson Oliver
The biggest shift was in how calibration actually worked. Instead of reconstructing assessments in a long post-cycle meeting, leaders walked in with data that had already been bias-corrected, expert-weighted, and drawn from across the organization. That freed the room to focus on the handful of cases that actually required human judgment. Incompass also required finer gradations than the old spreadsheet allowed, which turned blanket ratings into differentiated, defensible assessments and made the final conversation far more strategic.
"Even the skeptics realized this was a better way. We actually got kudos from people who don't normally give kudos. That never happens. The weight of the work had already been done. We didn't have to burn mental energy on the basics."
— Kara Wilson Oliver
Talent decisions don't just affect a single cycle, they affect trust, engagement, and the trajectory of the business. Getting them wrong is expensive in ways that don't show up on a dashboard. Getting them right compounds.
"Talent is your most expensive investment. Getting it wrong undermines trust and engagement. Getting it right changes everything."
— Kara Wilson Oliver
With clearer data, faster calibration, and input drawn from across the company, DealMaker now makes promotion, investment, and exit decisions it can stand behind, not just faster, but with confidence they'll hold up at scale.
This isn't unique to fintech, or to a company of 120 people. Most organizations make their most important talent calls, who to promote, who to invest in, who is truly driving impact, with data that's incomplete, biased, or both. The distortions are rarely intentional. They're structural: whoever speaks loudest in the room, whatever's easiest to measure. When that's the input, the best people don't always rise, and leaders lose the confidence they need to build teams that scale.
Ready to make talent decisions you can defend? See how Incompass (https://www.incompass.io/book-a-demo) helps leadership teams replace bias and spreadsheets with calibrated, evidence-based talent data.
Bilt (https://www.bilt.com/), a membership that lets people earn rewards on rent or mortgage and connects them to their neighborhood, has grown to 250-plus employees since launching out of a venture studio in 2020, organized around 12 cross-functional "pods" of no more than 25 people, each led by a general manager who doesn't need a technical background to run an engineering-heavy team. What matters to Bilt isn't whether someone can write code, it's whether they deliver, own their work, and grow. The harder question was how to know that, reliably, as the company scaled past 150, then 200, then 250 people and the informal visibility leaders once had started to disappear.
"We needed something to review these cross-functional teams. In our world, the actual skill set matters less, we know you can code if you're an engineer. The question becomes, how are we looking at the behaviors on top of that?"
— Ciara O'Sullivan (https://www.linkedin.com/in/caosullivan/), Senior Director of People, Bilt
Before Incompass, getting a clear read on talent across the organization was mostly a matter of intuition. Ciara ran review cycles through Google Sheets, Google Forms, and various survey tools, compiling qualitative feedback by hand and combing through long written responses trying to find the people who deserved recognition but might otherwise go unnoticed. December was for building surveys, January for opening reviews, all of February for manually compiling and synthesizing feedback, March for delivering it. In earlier cycles Ciara sat in on nearly every review conversation herself.
"I had a lot of qualitative feedback, not a lot of quantitative stuff, a lot of long written responses. There was one year that I printed everything out, the printers in our office couldn't handle it. I was organizing things by hand."
— Ciara O'Sullivan
The real cost wasn't the time. It was what happened on the other side: decisions made on instinct rather than data, and good contributors who slipped through because there was no way to surface them.
"The previous way of doing things was very much finger in the air. Very, 'we think this person's doing well'. Incompass has really given me a world where I can say: here's the data, here's what your team is doing. There are no questions."
— Ciara O'Sullivan
Running reviews quarterly generated enough data to see patterns, and Ciara's team used it at two levels at once. At the macro level, they tracked organization-wide trends, ownership scores, AI fluency, pod-level patterns, to prioritize hiring, training, and structural decisions. At the micro level, they sat with individual managers to review team dashboards, surface standout contributors, and flag people who needed support.
One of Bilt's assessment behaviors is AI fluency. After the first cycle, the data showed go-to-market teams were less fluent in AI tools than engineering. Bilt acted on it: a dedicated AI Slack channel, new tools, structured space for people to experiment and share what they were learning.
"It really informed where we had efficiencies and deficiencies as a business. My only goal is to make sure that people have the skills they need to be successful. AI was one very clear area where the data said: there's real growth that can happen here."
— Ciara O'Sullivan
Ownership, one of Bilt's most defining cultural values, is tracked the same way. Incompass data helps the team decide when someone's scope has grown to the point where a structural change, a new title, a new team, more support, is actually warranted.
"What Incompass has enabled us to do is say: yes, this person's ownership is what we think it is, or this person's ownership is actually too much. They probably need support. Let's think about what this person's role looks like."
— Ciara O'Sullivan
There's a reason annual reviews became the default: the process is usually too heavy to run more often. Bilt wanted quarterly from the start, because its employees, motivated and startup-minded, wanted feedback more than once a year, but wanting quarterly and being able to run it are two different things.
"Employees generally have a very negative connotation with performance reviews. They happen once a year, they're this big arduous cycle. And for us at Bilt, I was really looking for a tool that I could use quarterly. If I'm using a tool quarterly, I don't want to dread using the tool. And if I can get up in front of a team meeting and really speak positively and energetically and excitedly about this thing, that's contagious to employees too. It wasn't until our second cycle that our employees were like: performance cycles are nothing. And I'm like, that is exactly where we want to be."
— Ciara O'Sullivan
Bilt's second full review cycle launched within a week of setup. Managers who once spent the entire two-week window working through forms now complete feedback for a team of 15 to 20 in about an hour, some in as little as 30 minutes. Ciara's own workload dropped from a month of manual compiling to a week of configuration. Cross-pod reviewing meant some employees received more than 25 peer reviews in a single cycle, surfacing people who never would have appeared in a manager-only process. AI-generated summaries, grounded in the specific behaviors people were assessed on, gave managers a consistent starting point for every conversation.
"The LLM in Incompass knows the behaviors that people were being graded on. It's giving managers this beautifully written, nicely summarized feedback. And I know that it's consistent, and that it hasn't gone off the rails."
— Ciara O'Sullivan
The most meaningful outcome wasn't the time saved, it was that employees stopped dreading the process and leaders started trusting what came out of it.
"When a people team tool wins, you feel it throughout the organization because people aren't dreading doing the thing that tool is supposed to make better. And on my side, when I know I can trust the data and that the right things are being surfaced to me, that's a win-win on both sides."
— Ciara O'Sullivan
Bilt didn't adopt Incompass because it wanted a heavier process. It adopted Incompass because it needed to see its talent clearly enough, across 12 pods, every quarter, to make hiring, training, and structural calls with confidence instead of a gut check.
As organizations grow, the informal visibility leaders once had into who is driving impact quietly disappears. What works at 50 people doesn't hold at 150 or 250, and by the time most leadership teams notice, they've already been making consequential decisions on instinct for years. The answer for Bilt wasn't a heavier process, it was a different relationship with talent data: knowing, every quarter, at the pod level, exactly who was driving impact, where ownership had stretched too thin, and who deserved to be seen but wasn't.
Curious how Incompass can support your teams? Book a demo (https://www.incompass.io/book-a-demo) to see it for yourself.
nextSource (https://nextsource.com/), a workforce management solutions provider, wanted its own people practices to reflect the clarity it delivers to clients. With roughly 75 remote employees across the U.S., HR was running review cycles through Word documents and Excel spreadsheets: managers and employees filled out templates, emailed versions back and forth, and sent final files to HR to track and store. It technically worked, but the fragmentation made it hard to know whether the picture leaders were getting was actually complete.
Capturing input from across teams meant constant follow-up and manual coordination. Managers spent hours writing and revising documents, HR reconciled conflicting files, and any perspective beyond the direct manager relationship was hard to reflect at all. For a people-first organization built on transparency and connection, the process was creating friction, and blind spots, instead of clarity.
When HR started evaluating alternatives, the goal wasn't only speed, it was making conversations clearer, more inclusive, and easier to trust across a distributed team. Incompass stood out as a platform that brings reviews, goals, and team input into one shared space. Its 360-degree capabilities made it possible to capture perspectives from peers and cross-functional partners, reflecting how work actually gets done rather than one manager's view of it. AI-supported writing tools reduced the burden of starting from scratch, letting managers and teammates focus on substance instead of structure. Implementation was fast, and both managers and employees reported the process felt clearer from the first cycle.
For the first time, managers had a centralized view of input from across the organization, not just their own line of sight. Contributions that previously went unnoticed were surfaced, and conversations were grounded in real collaboration rather than one person's snapshot of another. That matters most in the moments that actually carry weight: deciding who's ready for more responsibility, who needs support, and where a manager's read on someone might be missing something a peer would catch.
"AI is there for support, not to take away the human element. It actually opens up better conversations between managers and employees."
— Director of Training, Learning, and Development, nextSource
What once lived across inboxes, spreadsheets, and documents moved into a single system. Managers entered input directly into Incompass, and HR generated one exportable report for leadership instead of consolidating by hand.
"The process was definitely faster. Before, it was all Excel, back and forth. Now it's one report, across the organization."
— Jessica Tyre (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessica-tyre-ccwp-7250a75/), Director of Training and Development, nextSource
In its first cycle, nextSource cut the time required to complete reviews and goal setting by about 50 percent. That mattered less for the hours saved and more for what it freed up: HR stopped tracking down documents, and managers spent that time on the conversations themselves rather than the paperwork behind them. Goals and progress are now visible in one place, giving employees, managers, and HR shared context going into every one-on-one and check-in, and giving managers a fuller, more defensible basis for the calls they make about their people.
Most importantly, the process now reflects nextSource's culture: people-first, collaborative, and built around how teams actually work.
Curious how Incompass could support your organization? Schedule your demo (https://www.incompass.io/book-a-demo) today.
Turning a bold strategy into reality took more than a compelling vision. It required Hostelworld's leadership to know, with confidence, which behaviors to reinforce and which people were actually driving the shift, not just who said the right things in a values statement.
Hostelworld (https://www.hostelworldgroup.com/) launched in 1999 as an online travel agent for hostels. Coming out of the pandemic, CEO Gary Morrison saw both a renewed appetite for travel and a growing epidemic of loneliness, and an opportunity for Hostelworld to serve a deeper need: helping people connect while traveling. Delivering on that meant the organization itself had to become more agile, more willing to take risks, and more interdependent. That kind of shift doesn't happen because leadership says it should. It happens when the people making day-to-day calls, who to develop, who to promote, where to intervene, are working from the same read on what's actually changing.
Morrison partnered with Incompass to redesign how feedback and peer perspective were gathered across the company. Rather than relying on top-down assessments or infrequent evaluations, Hostelworld built a more inclusive process that let employees at every level weigh in on how work was being done, not just what got delivered. That reinforced a principle leadership wanted to be true: culture wasn't owned by the top of the org chart, it was something every employee had a hand in shaping and a stake in enforcing.
Traditional 360 processes can be shaped by who gets picked as a reviewer and by peers who hold back candid input. Hostelworld required a balanced mix, at least one manager, one peer, and one direct report, for every employee. Once feedback came in, Incompass calibrated it in context: accounting for scoring variability, weighting expertise, flagging statistical outliers. That gave leaders more confidence that the pattern they were seeing in the data was real, not an artifact of who happened to review whom.
Rather than evaluating abstract qualities, Hostelworld built assessments around specific, observable behaviors: data-informed decision-making, supporting others' growth. That specificity made expectations clearer and gave managers something concrete to act on, whether that meant a development conversation, a promotion case, or flagging where someone's approach didn't match where the company was headed.
Using AI to synthesize and summarize feedback cut what used to take weeks down to days, which made it realistic to run the process multiple times a year instead of once. That meant leaders could recognize contributors and course-correct closer to the moment it mattered, rather than finding out at the annual review that a gap had been open for months.
Research from Gartner shows that most leaders change what they say when trying to shift culture, but far fewer change how work actually happens, even though operational change has the greater impact. By redesigning a core people process rather than issuing a new values statement, Hostelworld gave itself a way to actually decide who was living the new strategy and who needed to catch up, and to act on that read with evidence behind it.
Curious how you could reinforce culture through structured feedback and make those calls with more confidence? Schedule (https://www.incompass.io/book-a-demo) a chat to learn how Incompass helps organizations operationalize culture at scale.
Remote and hybrid work are no longer edge cases. Nearly half of all roles now fall into one of those categories, more than double the pre-pandemic rate. Leaders still cite culture as one of their strongest advantages, but for a fully remote company that creates a real problem: how do you know your talent well enough to make confident decisions about who to reward, promote, or invest in, without the visibility that being in a room together naturally provides?
Structured (https://structured.agency/), a 60-person fully remote marketing agency, had to answer that question directly.
Founded in 2018, Structured had grown steadily, much of it without formal people processes in place. As leadership thought about how to sustain that growth, they landed on two levers: retaining and developing talent, and being more intentional about culture. They hired Andrea Evans (https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrea-evans-19a9611/) as Head of People to lead the effort.
Andrea's challenge is common across the industry: companies spend roughly 40 percent of their annual budget on payroll and related costs, yet the data leaders have to manage that investment is still mostly qualitative, subjective, and incomplete, even in an era when nearly every other business function runs on analytics. For a remote company, where behavior is harder to observe in the first place, that gap is wider still.
Andrea's first priority was connection, designed deliberately rather than left to chance. She introduced weekly rituals giving people formal and informal reasons to build relationships across a distributed team. When she shared the approach on LinkedIn, over 37,000 people responded, evidence that this is a challenge well beyond Structured alone. Employees said the rituals brought teams closer together and connected them with colleagues they didn't usually work with.
With connection in place, Andrea turned to a harder problem: Structured had a strong set of values but no consistent way to know how well those values were actually showing up across the organization. Most companies set goals for what employees need to accomplish, but very few measure how employees are expected to work, and even where expectations exist, assessments tend to be subjective, manager-dependent, and disconnected from the wider picture. That leaves leaders making real talent decisions without much to back them up.
To close that gap, Andrea brought in Incompass to get clear, trusted visibility into talent and impact across the business. It didn't require a heavy rollout or an HR-led implementation; Andrea had it running in under an hour and started with what mattered most. Four things stood out to her:
Fast time to value. With support from Incompass's Customer Success team, setup took under an hour, no procurement cycle, no organizational change required.
A faster, more accurate experience for employees. Interactive sliders and AI-assisted input cut the time employees spent on feedback in half while improving the quality of what they shared, which made it realistic to move from an annual process to a much more frequent one.
A clear read on who was driving impact. Incompass automatically calibrates input across the organization, giving leaders the ability to spot high-potential talent, see which teams were thriving, and find alignment gaps early, the kind of clarity into contribution that's nearly impossible to get from a traditional survey.
Room to grow with the business. In Andrea's words: "The platform is great for measuring alignment with our values, but it's stretchy enough to give us a broad view of talent performance, which is where the real value lies."
Visibility only matters if it leads somewhere. Andrea knew culture gets reinforced when people see that shared expectations actually count, and that the people who live the company's values are recognized and rewarded for it. With Incompass in place, Structured had ongoing clarity into how values showed up across the organization. Employees got personalized insight and development recommendations. Leaders had what they needed to make talent decisions with confidence, moving away from gut instinct and subjective manager opinion toward something more objective and defensible. Bonus allocation and promotion readiness conversations are now tied directly to this data, so how Structured rewards people lines up with what it says it values.
"I am thrilled that we now have data that show who is living our values and can confidently tie bonuses and other rewards to this. I believe this will be a critical building block for our future success."
— CEO Jake Schmidt
The companies that win on culture, especially remote and hybrid ones, won't be the ones with the best values statement. They'll be the ones with the clearest picture of who is actually driving impact, and the confidence to act on what they see. What works today may evolve tomorrow, but when culture decisions are built on evidence, teams are better equipped to grow together, wherever they work.
Curious to see how Incompass works? We'd love to chat (https://www.incompass.io/book-a-demo), or try it (https://incompass.io/pricing) yourself.
A 30,000-employee global organization with a collaborative, feedback-averse culture had a problem hiding in plain sight: everyone felt validated, but leadership couldn't actually tell who was driving results and who was coasting on goodwill. The Chief HR Officer saw an opportunity to use that gap to drive real change.
The organization's culture discouraged candid conversations about performance. Without a structured way to gather input, it was difficult to develop leaders well or make informed decisions about who deserved more responsibility, more investment, or a harder conversation.
Incompass was introduced to 200 of the company's most senior leaders specifically to disrupt that dynamic. The 360 assessment required leaders to have transparent conversations about performance, grounded in input from multiple perspectives rather than a single manager's view. That was a real shift, from generic validation to a more honest look at individual contribution.
The initial rollout changed how the leadership team approached feedback and accountability. Leaders moved through a real range of reactions, shock, denial, anger, acceptance, as they processed what they were hearing, and that process opened conversations that had been avoided for years.
One useful data point was simply how many reviews people received. A direct report who initially got only two recognized how thin his network across the organization actually was, and set out to build broader relationships ahead of the next cycle. The feedback culture among senior leaders shifted too, as some recognized a real gap between how they rated themselves and how others saw them. Balancing self-assessment against peer input challenged the assumption that everyone excels at everything, and pushed the organization toward a more merit-based read on performance. The CHRO expects these assessments to sharpen further with each cycle.
The most lasting change has been how often leaders now reference Incompass when they talk about performance. According to the CHRO, not a day goes by without it coming up. The tool's impact goes beyond the ratings themselves: it's changed how leaders decide who's ready for more, who needs development, and who needs a direct conversation they'd have avoided before.
For this organization, Incompass turned out to be more than an assessment. It became the mechanism that let leadership move the company from a culture where everyone got a trophy to one where real performance differences could be seen, discussed, and acted on. The company has since retired its traditional performance review process and software in favor of running Incompass twice a year.
