I hated performance reviews.
Not because I did not want feedback. Quite the opposite.
I always wanted to know how I was doing, what I could improve, and whether the work I was doing was actually valued.
What I disliked was the process.
Once a year, someone would sit down, look back over twelve months of work, assign ratings to a handful of categories, and somehow turn an entire year of performance into a few numbers and paragraphs.
Then everyone would pretend that was an effective way to develop people.
If feedback is important, why are we saving it for once a year?
Twelve Months Is Too Long to Wait
Imagine an employee makes a mistake in March. Nobody says anything. Then in December, it appears in their performance review. What exactly are they supposed to do with that? If the issue mattered, it should have been discussed in March.
If the employee handled something exceptionally well, that should have been recognized then too.
Feedback becomes less useful the further it moves away from the event.
Feedback should happen close enough to the work that someone can actually do something with it.
The Rating Becomes the Conversation
A lot of traditional reviews eventually become a discussion about numbers. Meets expectations. Exceeds expectations. Three out of five. Four out of five. Then the employee starts wondering:
Why did I get a three instead of a four?
What would I have had to do differently?
Is this rating going to affect my raise?
How did someone else get rated?
Suddenly the conversation is no longer about development. It is about defending a score.
The system encourages the employee to argue for a better rating and the manager to justify the rating they gave.
That is not a particularly useful conversation for either person.
People Remember the Recent Stuff
Twelve months is a long time.
Unless managers keep detailed notes, the review can easily become a summary of what happened most recently.
An employee may have performed exceptionally for ten months and then struggled with one difficult project.
Guess which part is easiest to remember? The opposite can happen too. Someone can struggle throughout much of the year and finish strongly. Human memory is not an objective performance database. That is another reason continuous conversations matter.
The Review Should Never Be a Surprise
This is probably my biggest issue with traditional performance reviews. Nothing important in that meeting should be new. If an employee is performing well, they should already know it. If they are struggling, they should definitely already know it.
A manager who waits until the annual review to tell someone they have a serious performance problem has failed part of the management responsibility.
A performance review should summarize conversations, not introduce them.
Managers Need Feedback Too
Performance reviews are usually structured in one direction. The manager evaluates the employee. But work does not happen in one direction. Managers affect employee performance. Were expectations clear? Did the employee have the resources needed? Was feedback provided when problems occurred?
Did the manager remove obstacles? Did priorities keep changing? Was the employee given opportunities to grow? A useful performance conversation should leave room for those questions too.
Employee performance does not happen independently of management.
Development Should Matter More Than Documentation
Companies need documentation. I understand that. There are legitimate reasons to maintain a record of employee performance. But documentation should not become the purpose of the process. The real question should be: Is this conversation helping the person become better at their job?
If the answer is no, then filling out a longer form probably will not fix it.
What I Would Do Instead
I would not eliminate performance conversations. I would make them more frequent and much less dramatic.
Short regular check-ins between managers and employees
Clear expectations for what good performance looks like
Feedback when something actually happens
Recognition when someone does something well
Direct conversations when performance needs to improve
Specific goals for growth and development
A formal review that summarizes the year instead of reconstructing it
The annual review can still exist. It simply should not carry the entire weight of employee development.
Feedback Should Be Part of the Job
Good feedback does not need to be formal. Sometimes it is simply: “That worked really well.” Or: “Next time, I think we should approach this differently.” The important thing is that the conversation happens.
Do not make employees wait until the end of the year to find out how they are doing.
Create a culture where feedback is normal, specific, timely, and focused on helping people improve. Then the formal review becomes a summary of progress instead of an annual judgment.
The Conversation Is More Important Than the Form
I do not think companies need a more sophisticated performance review template. They need better conversations. Employees should know what is expected. They should know when they are doing well. They should know when something needs to change.
And they should have a manager who helps them figure out how to get better.
If that happens throughout the year, the annual review becomes much less intimidating.
It may even become useful.
The best performance review should contain almost no surprises.
More From PXM Software Solutions
Explore more thinking on leadership, business, people, and technology.