How to Use the Sous Chef Performance Review Template
Recording your performance reviews in Pilla means every assessment, objective, and development conversation is captured in one place. Instead of paper forms that get filed and forgotten, you build a continuous record that connects to one-to-one notes, tracks progress against objectives, and gives both you and your sous chef a clear reference point. When head chef readiness or progression decisions come up, the evidence is already documented.
Key Takeaways
- Metrics to Review checklist ensures you gather kitchen labour cost, service issue rate, prep completion rate, and team retention data before writing anything
- Previous Objectives Review documents what was achieved, partially achieved, not achieved, or blocked since the last review
- Technical Competencies assessment covers kitchen coordination, team development, service management, head chef support, and standards maintenance with Exceeds/Meets/Below descriptors
- Behavioural Competencies assessment covers leadership, reliability, initiative, and communication
- Compliance and Standards confirms food safety enforcement, health and safety, staff welfare, and documentation
- Key Achievements and Development Areas use specific evidence, dates, and measurable outcomes
- Objectives for Next Period sets SMART targets covering operational performance and career development
- Overall Assessment selects Exceeds, Meets, or Below expectations as a holistic rating
- Meeting Notes and Review Summary capture the review conversation and agreed next steps
Article Content
Why structured sous chef performance reviews matter
Your sous chef is the bridge between cooking and leading. A well-written performance review helps them understand exactly where they stand in that transition — which leadership and operational skills they've developed, where they still default to being a senior CDP, and what they need to master before stepping up to a head chef role.
This template walks you through a complete performance review: gathering kitchen-specific evidence, assessing both technical and leadership competencies, documenting achievements and development areas, setting objectives, and recording the review meeting. Each section is designed to produce a fair, evidence-based assessment that focuses on the skills that matter most for this pivotal role.
Metrics to Review
Metrics to Review
Review objectives set at the last performance review. Note which were achieved, partially achieved, not achieved, or blocked.
Before writing any assessment, gather data on each of these metrics. Tick each one as you collect the information. Having the numbers in front of you prevents vague feedback and ensures your assessment is grounded in evidence.
Kitchen labour cost — Pull kitchen labour cost as a percentage of revenue for the review period. Compare to budget and to the previous period. A sous chef who helps manage labour efficiently — adjusting staffing levels to demand, avoiding unnecessary overtime, planning rotas that balance cost with quality — is contributing commercially. Compare labour cost during their managed shifts versus the head chef's managed shifts to understand their direct impact.
Service issue rate — Track service-related issues during the review period: send-backs, timing failures, quality inconsistencies, and FOH complaints about the kitchen. Compare their managed services to overall averages. A sous chef whose services run consistently with low issue rates is coordinating the kitchen effectively. Rising issues during their shifts may indicate team management or quality control gaps.
Prep completion rate — Assess how often prep is fully completed before service during their shifts. Incomplete prep is the leading cause of service problems, and the sous chef typically owns prep management. If prep is consistently finished on time, the team is well-organised. If it's regularly incomplete, there's a planning, delegation, or staffing issue.
Team retention — Review kitchen team turnover during the review period. A sous chef has significant influence on whether CDPs and commis chefs stay or leave. High turnover in the kitchen team may indicate leadership issues, poor culture, or inadequate support. Low turnover alongside strong performance indicates good people management.
Customisation tips:
- For fine dining, add dish consistency scores and special dietary request accuracy
- For high-volume operations, weight prep completion and service speed more heavily
- For kitchens with significant menu development, add new dish success rate and development contribution
- Don't assess the sous chef only on their personal cooking — their leadership impact on the team matters more
Previous Objectives Review
Review objectives set at the last performance review. Note which were achieved, partially achieved, not achieved, or blocked.
Pull up the objectives from the last performance review. For each one, document whether it was:
- Achieved: They met or exceeded the target — note the evidence
- Partially achieved: Progress made but not complete — note what was done and what remains
- Not achieved: No meaningful progress — understand why before judging
- Blocked: External factors prevented progress — head chef didn't delegate, training budget cut, staffing constraints
Be honest about blocked objectives. If you promised to give them more responsibility during the head chef's absence but then had the head chef cover every shift, that's not their failure. If menu development exposure was agreed but the head chef didn't involve them, acknowledge that. Fairness builds trust.
If this is their first review and no previous objectives exist, note that and use this section to document the baseline you're measuring from going forward.
Technical Competencies
Technical Competencies
Record your rating and evidence for each technical competency. Use specific examples and data.
Assess each competency based on observed behaviour and data over the full review period — not just the last two weeks. Tick each competency as you assess it.
| Competency | Exceeds expectations | Meets expectations | Below expectations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kitchen coordination | Manages the kitchen seamlessly during service, anticipates bottlenecks, keeps all sections in sync, service runs smoothly with minimal intervention needed | Coordinates sections adequately, responds to issues during service, keeps the kitchen running at an acceptable level | Loses control during busy services, sections fall out of sync, requires constant head chef intervention |
| Team development | Actively coaches and develops CDPs, identifies talent, creates development opportunities, team members visibly improve under their guidance | Provides basic support and instruction, answers questions, helps when asked | Limited investment in team development, CDPs left to develop themselves, no visible improvement in team capability |
| Service management | Runs services independently to head chef standard, handles unexpected problems calmly, maintains quality and timing throughout, FOH reports consistently good food delivery | Manages most services competently, occasional timing issues during peak, escalates appropriately | Struggles during busy services, quality drops under pressure, frequent timing issues, unable to run service without head chef |
| Head chef support | Anticipates the head chef's needs, proactively manages tasks without being asked, shares the leadership load equally, head chef trusts them completely | Follows head chef direction reliably, completes assigned tasks, communicates when needed | Passive in the relationship, waits to be told, doesn't anticipate needs, head chef cannot rely on them to manage independently |
| Standards maintenance | Standards are consistent whether or not the head chef is present, leads by example, addresses quality issues immediately, drives continuous improvement | Maintains standards when supervised, generally consistent quality, addresses issues when pointed out | Standards drop when head chef is absent, inconsistent quality, lets shortcuts pass, doesn't enforce expectations |
Avoiding common rating errors:
- Recency bias: Check your notes from three months ago. Did they handle a difficult month well that's now forgotten?
- Halo effect: Excellent cooking ability doesn't mean excellent team leadership. Rate each competency separately.
- Head chef shadow: Assess what they contribute, not what the head chef achieves. Compare services they run independently to their contributions alongside the head chef.
Customisation tips:
- For sous chefs being considered for promotion, weight service management and team development most heavily — these are the head chef differentiators
- For newer sous chefs, focus on kitchen coordination and head chef support as the foundational competencies
- For kitchens with multiple sous chefs, add collaboration and communication between the sous chef team
Record your rating and evidence for each technical competency. Use specific examples and data.
For each competency, record your rating (Exceeds, Meets, or Below) with specific evidence. Use dates, numbers, and examples rather than general impressions.
Example phrases:
"[Name] ran the kitchen independently for 12 services during the head chef's holiday in January, maintaining zero send-backs and receiving specific praise from FOH for consistent timing."
"[Name]'s team development needs attention — two CDPs expressed frustration about lack of feedback and development in their one-to-ones, and no formal training was delivered during the review period."
"[Name] managed a 140-cover Saturday service on 8th February independently, including handling an equipment failure on the grill section mid-service with no impact on timing or quality."
"[Name] struggled with standards maintenance — observed three occasions during the head chef's absence where plating standards dropped noticeably compared to the expected level."
Behavioural Competencies
Behavioural Competencies
Record your rating and evidence for each behavioural competency. Use specific examples.
Assess each behavioural competency across the full review period.
| Competency | Exceeds expectations | Meets expectations | Below expectations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leadership | Commands respect through competence and fairness, the team follows their lead willingly, creates a positive kitchen culture, developing a clear leadership identity | Manages the team adequately, maintains discipline, team functions well under their direction | Struggles to lead, team doesn't respect authority, relies on head chef for discipline, creates tension rather than cohesion |
| Reliability | Always dependable, never misses a shift, consistently the first in and last out when needed, covers without complaint, delivers on every commitment | Generally reliable, punctual, follows through on most commitments, reasonable flexibility | Inconsistent attendance, lets commitments slip, unreliable during critical periods, leaves gaps for others to fill |
| Initiative | Identifies and solves problems without being asked, suggests improvements to processes and systems, drives standards up proactively, manages their domain independently | Completes assigned tasks reliably, follows up on requests, asks appropriate questions | Waits for direction, misses obvious issues, needs constant management, doesn't take ownership beyond explicit instructions |
| Communication | Clear and effective with team, head chef, and FOH, handles difficult conversations directly, provides useful feedback, keeps everyone informed proactively | Communicates adequately during service, passes on information, responds when asked | Poor communication during service, creates confusion, avoids difficult conversations, doesn't keep others informed |
Record your rating and evidence for each behavioural competency. Use specific examples.
Record your rating and evidence for each behavioural competency using specific examples.
Example phrases:
"[Name] demonstrated exceptional leadership during the February staffing crisis — reorganised the section plan, communicated calmly with the team, and maintained service quality despite being two chefs short."
"[Name] struggled with communication — FOH reported three occasions where dish availability wasn't communicated until guests had already ordered, creating complaints."
"[Name] showed strong initiative by redesigning the prep schedule to improve efficiency, saving approximately 4 hours of labour per week without affecting quality."
Compliance and Standards
Compliance and Standards
Record any compliance concerns, training needs, or positive observations.
Confirm each compliance area has been assessed. Any gaps must be addressed immediately — the sous chef is jointly responsible with the head chef for kitchen compliance.
Food safety enforcement — Do they enforce food safety standards consistently? Are temperature records maintained during their shifts? Do they ensure correct labelling, storage, and rotation? Do they address food safety lapses immediately? The sous chef is often the person who sees food safety issues first — their enforcement is critical.
Health and safety — Do they maintain safe working conditions in the kitchen? Are they aware of and enforcing manual handling procedures, knife safety, and equipment safety? Do they ensure cleaning schedules are followed? Do they report and address hazards promptly?
Staff welfare — Do they monitor working hours and ensure the team takes breaks? Are they aware of working time regulations? Do they notice when team members are struggling physically or mentally? A sous chef who drives the team without regard for welfare creates burnout and retention problems.
Documentation — Are kitchen records (temperatures, cleaning, delivery checks, allergen records) maintained accurately during their shifts? Is documentation completed in real time or retrospectively? Accurate records are a legal requirement, not optional paperwork.
Record any compliance concerns, training needs, or positive observations.
Record any compliance concerns, training gaps, or positive observations. If any area is below standard, document the required action and timeline for resolution. Note any compliance achievements such as successful EHO visits or improved documentation during the review period.
Key Achievements
Document 3-5 specific achievements with evidence, dates, and measurable outcomes.
Document 3-5 specific achievements with evidence, dates, and measurable outcomes. Achievements should be things that went beyond basic job requirements — moments where this sous chef created particular value.
How to write strong achievement statements:
- Be specific: dates, numbers, names, outcomes
- Show impact: kitchen performance improved, problems solved, team developed, standards raised
- Focus on leadership contributions, not just personal cooking excellence
Example phrases:
"[Name] ran the kitchen independently for two consecutive weeks during the head chef's absence in January, maintaining service standards and delivering zero complaints across 24 services."
"[Name] redesigned the prep schedule, saving approximately 4 hours of labour per week and improving prep completion rate from 85% to 98%."
"[Name] developed two CDPs during the review period — one promoted to a senior position and one cited [Name] as the most helpful leader they've worked with."
"[Name] led the kitchen's response to the September equipment failure, reorganising sections mid-service and maintaining full service without guest impact."
"[Name] contributed three new dishes to the autumn menu development, all of which became top sellers and received positive guest feedback."
Customisation tips:
- For sous chefs being considered for promotion, highlight instances where they ran the kitchen independently — these are the strongest evidence of head chef readiness
- For newer sous chefs, acknowledge development milestones — first independent service, first team management success, first conflict resolution
- Weight leadership achievements alongside cooking achievements — the role is about both
Development Areas
Document 2-3 development areas with specific evidence and improvement actions.
Document 2-3 development areas with specific evidence. Each development area should link to a concrete improvement action — not just a label.
How to write constructive development feedback:
- Focus on behaviour and outcomes, not personality
- Use specific evidence: dates, observations, data
- Connect each area to an action or opportunity
- Be direct but fair — vague feedback helps nobody
Example phrases:
"[Name]'s team development needs improvement — no formal training or coaching sessions were delivered during the review period, and two CDPs reported feeling unsupported."
"[Name] struggled with communication during the December peak — FOH reported five occasions where 86ing wasn't communicated until guests had already ordered."
"[Name] tends to do tasks themselves rather than delegating to CDPs — observed on multiple occasions preparing garnishes and sauces that should have been CDP responsibilities."
"[Name]'s standards dropped during the head chef's two-week absence — plating consistency declined and three send-backs were recorded, compared to zero during the head chef's presence."
Objectives for Next Period
Write SMART objectives for the next review period. Include both operational targets and development goals.
Set 3-5 SMART objectives (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) that connect to both the development areas above and their career interests.
Operational target examples:
"Run the kitchen independently for at least 10 services during the review period with service issue rate below 2% and zero escalated complaints from FOH."
"Improve prep completion rate to 95% or above across all supervised shifts by implementing the revised prep schedule."
"Reduce kitchen labour cost to within 1% of budget during supervised shifts through proactive rota management and shift planning."
Development goal examples:
"Develop and cost at least 5 new dishes for the spring menu, presenting them to the head chef and management for consideration."
"Deliver at least one structured training session per month for the CDP team, covering technique, food safety, or menu knowledge."
"Attend at least 2 supplier meetings alongside the head chef during the review period to develop purchasing and relationship management skills."
Connecting objectives to career progression:
| Current role | Typical next step | What to assess |
|---|---|---|
| Sous Chef | Head Chef | Independent kitchen management, menu development and costing, team building and leadership, supplier management, ability to manage upward and communicate with FOH |
If they want to become a head chef, include kitchen-ownership objectives — independent service running, menu development, costing, and team building. If they prefer to stay as an expert sous chef, focus on technical mastery, consistency, and mentoring depth. Set targets that stretch but don't break — if they currently struggle during independent services, asking them to run 10 flawlessly is unrealistic without interim support steps.
Overall Assessment
Select the overall performance rating based on the full assessment.
Record the discussion from the review meeting, including their response and any context they provide.
Select the overall performance rating based on the full assessment. This is a holistic judgement, not a simple average of individual competency ratings.
Exceeds expectations — Consistently runs the kitchen to head chef standard, develops the team, maintains standards independently, and demonstrates clear readiness for additional responsibility. This sous chef is a genuine leader who could step into a head chef role.
Meets expectations — Reliably supports the head chef and manages the kitchen competently. Maintains standards, coordinates services, and is developing leadership skills at a reasonable pace. Development areas exist but don't undermine overall effectiveness.
Below expectations — Performance falls short of the required standard in one or more significant areas. Standards drop without head chef presence, team development lacking, or kitchen coordination insufficient. Improvement is needed with clear support and timelines.
Be honest. Rating everyone as "Meets expectations" helps nobody. If they're exceptional, recognise it — and connect it to the head chef pathway. If they're struggling, name it — with the support plan to help them succeed.
Meeting Notes
Record the discussion from the review meeting, including their response and any context they provide.
Schedule at least 45 minutes for the review conversation — 30 for discussion, 15 for buffer. Meet in private, outside the kitchen.
How to conduct the meeting:
Give them the written review to read for 5-10 minutes. Don't hover — get them a drink and let them absorb it privately. When they've read it, ask: "What are your thoughts? Does this feel fair?" Then listen. Don't defend immediately — understand their perspective first.
Sous chefs may feel the review doesn't capture the full reality of their contribution — especially the invisible work of keeping the kitchen running when the head chef is absent. If they raise valid points about context you missed or blocked objectives, amend the document. If the head chef relationship is affecting their performance and you haven't addressed it, own that.
The goal is a document both parties consider fair and accurate — not necessarily one they're delighted about.
What to record: Their response to each section, any context they provided that changes your assessment, points of agreement and disagreement, and their reaction to the objectives set.
Review Summary
Summarise agreed actions, amendments made during the meeting, and next steps.
Summarise the agreed outcome: amendments made during the meeting, final objectives confirmed, next steps, and when objective check-ins will happen.
Both parties should sign and date the final document. Give them a copy. The signature means "I have read and understood this review" — not necessarily "I agree with everything."
Follow-through matters: Schedule objective check-ins in your regular one-to-ones. "How did Wednesday's independent service go?" and "Where are we on the new dish development?" keep objectives alive rather than letting them gather dust until the next formal review.
Be transparent about how this review connects to head chef readiness and progression decisions. If you're actively assessing whether they're ready for a head chef role, say so — they deserve to know.
What's next
Performance reviews are most effective when they connect to ongoing one-to-one conversations. The evidence you need for a fair review should already exist in your one-to-one notes.
- Read our Sous Chef one-to-one guide for how to run the conversations that feed into this review
- Check out our Sous Chef onboarding guide if you're reviewing someone still in their first 90 days
- See our Sous Chef interview guide for how to assess candidates before they join