What performance reviews is
A performance review is a structured, periodic assessment of an employee's work over a defined period, usually combining a self-assessment, a manager assessment, and sometimes input from peers or others, ending in a documented outcome.
Why it matters
Reviews are the formal record of performance. They are referred to in increment decisions, promotions, improvement plans and occasionally disputes, so what they say, and how it was arrived at, needs to hold up.
Common challenges
Recency
Without notes from the year, the review reflects the last month.
Vague criteria
Ratings without defined levels mean different things to different managers.
One-way conversations
Reviews delivered rather than discussed produce agreement on paper only.
The process, step by step
- 1
Collect input
Self-assessment, manager assessment and any peer input, against the period's goals.
- 2
Draft ratings
Managers draft ratings using shared definitions of each level.
- 3
Calibrate
Compare drafts across teams and adjust for consistency.
- 4
Discuss
Hold the conversation, focusing on evidence and next steps.
- 5
Record and act
Document the outcome and any development or improvement plan.
Best practices
- Define what each rating level means, with examples.
- Ask for the self-assessment before the manager writes theirs.
- End every review with agreed next steps, not only a rating.
Mistakes to avoid
- Writing the review from memory.
- Sharing ratings before calibration.
- Using the review to raise problems for the first time.
How software helps
Review software gathers self, manager and peer input in one place, shows the year's goals and notes beside the form, and holds calibration and the final outcome on the employee's record.
Questions about performance reviews
What the employee achieved against their goals, with evidence, what got in the way, and what they want to develop next. It is most useful when written before the manager's assessment.
Peer input can add perspective the manager lacks, especially in cross-functional roles. It works best when it is specific and focused on observed work.
Long enough for a real two-way conversation about the period and the next one. If the review contains no surprises, it rarely needs to be long.
Collect self, manager and any peer input against the period's goals, draft ratings using shared level definitions, calibrate across teams, hold the review conversation, and record the outcome with any development or improvement plan.
No. Sharing draft ratings before they are calibrated means some may later change, which undermines trust in the whole process.
Define what each rating level means, with examples, so that every manager is applying the same scale. Without shared definitions, the same rating means different things in different teams.
No. A good review contains no news. Concerns should be raised as they arise during the year, so the review summarises conversations that have already happened.
With agreed next steps and a documented outcome, not only a rating. The record may later be referred to for increments, promotions or improvement plans.