Photo credit: cuvii via Unsplash
What if the problem with annual performance reviews isn’t the review itself, but the conversations we’re not having?
It’s November. That time of year when many companies do their annual performance reviews, a process that both managers and employees appear to dread. And, as my neighbor often says, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Leaders want to recognize accomplishments, provide useful feedback, address areas for improvement, support professional growth, and somehow measure it all. Employees want to know how they’re doing, have a voice in how things could work better, explore where they might go next, and whether they’ll get a salary bump. Yet somewhere, something gets lost in translation. Managers struggle to deliver feedback that feels fair, useful, honest, and timely. Employees may feel scared, defensive, misunderstood, or blindsided. What was meant to be a meaningful exchange can become a slog of ticking boxes and filing forms, leaving everyone feeling a little shortchanged.
Managers make performance reviews more meaningful when they treat the review as one moment inside a year-long development conversation, meeting regularly to talk about how someone is doing and where they hope to grow, and listening closely for what that particular person needs.
In a Harvard Business School case study, professor Katherine Coffman follows one software company that moved toward regular career conversations, where feedback travels in both directions and managers and employees chart a path forward together. It’s a good place to start.
At Henley Leadership Group, this is a hot topic. We’re even planning a webinar or two around it. We’ve been exploring how to make these conversations more meaningful and effective. Interestingly, no one has suggested completely eliminating performance reviews. Instead, our coaches imagined something different: conversations that build trust, encourage learning, recognize the whole person, and create possibilities for the future. Conversations that ultimately contribute to a healthier workforce and, hopefully, a better bottom line.
Courtney: What If We’re Measuring the Wrong Things?
When I think about year-end reviews, I immediately flash to the Danielson Framework. It is how many schools measure a teacher’s success. There are so many domains, components, and elements of success, and a rubric with so many categories and words that if I saw a teacher give it to a student, they’d automatically fail to meet the planning and design standard of the Danielson Framework.
So the tool, the very tool, is in opposition to the work it’s measuring, and I don’t think that’s rare. And that’s what I would want to create from scratch: something that measures what we actually mean to measure and is aligned with our work, our team, and our company values.
I’ve been spending a lot of time lately thinking about the learning zone, resilience, and courage, partly for a program we’re designing and partly because I just don’t think people are okay right now. Rather than asking people to stretch from the comfort zone into the learning zone, as we used to introduce it, the work right now is almost about bringing people in from the panic zone down into the learning zone.
This week, I remembered something Dr. Becky Kennedy, a clinical psychologist, said in a video I watched years ago: the gap between knowing and not knowing is where actual learning happens, and it’s so frustrating to be in that gap. Our ability to tolerate the frustration that lives in that gap is what really builds our resilience.
In essence, the concept of resilience sounds great. Resilience, the action, is terrible and hard. And staying in that uncomfortable, shaky wilderness of not knowing, with the goal of getting to the other side, is courageous.
So if I were setting up a performance conversation, I might say something like:
“Here’s where I think you could or should be and the work I’d like you to be able to do. Don’t panic about not being able to do it all yet. What do you know how to do, and where are you in the unknowing? What tools, resources, and work do you need to navigate that unknowing? Where this year did you try to escape or bypass the unknowing?”
And of course, all of this takes time, real preparation for each conversation, holding the creative tension between what is now and the possible future state, reflection, and honest, trusting conversations.
Time, which seems to be the most expensive of all the resources. adrienne maree brown says, “There is always enough time for the right work.”
I said that to a group of teachers last week, and they almost booed me. It was rough. And I get it. “There’s always enough time” lands differently on a Monday with a full inbox than it does in theory. But later in the session, when we practiced a feedforward exercise in which they gathered suggestions from their colleagues on how to navigate a behavior they’d like to change this year, time seemed to stretch a bit. We were invigorated by being at choice about how we might develop. We got to own it and celebrate that we were all working on something difficult. That’s the standard I want for performance conversations, something that honors how difficult it is to stay in that gap between knowing and not knowing.
— Courtney Caldwell, Director of Innovation & Program Delivery
Henley Leadership Group
George: What If the Leader Were the Sous Chef?
Designing a performance conversation from scratch. It’s amazing to walk into a kitchen and try to imagine something new to cook.
First, I would do a quick inventory of what was in the kitchen. I suspect I’d find the usual bits and pieces. Some list of your accomplishments, how you did relative to your goals, what you want to focus on going forward, and maybe some solicited feedback from others.
Then, in another cupboard, there might be what the manager has to say, a scoring dashboard against values or competencies, and what the manager and their mysterious peers think I should work on. Throw in some spices to make it hot, like a forced distribution curve of ratings, promotion and salary ranges, and of course more advancement or not.
I find myself trembling from all the years I’ve spent in and around kitchens like this.
So, what if we flew around the world to a far-off place with a different culture, where the kitchen wasn’t set up around performance and output? What if it was about self-discovery, continual learning, and relationship, and ultimate happiness as measured by fulfillment and belonging?
How about a conversation that was based on what I have learned about myself through working with others? Here are my greatest assets and liabilities. Here’s what I’m excited about and what scares the crap out of me. Here is what I want to focus on developing in me and others, what I need help with, and who I think can help me.
You could add in a vision conversation about what you have accomplished in a year’s time. Explore the creative tension between here and there, and build a roadmap to get there. The leader would be a sous chef in this conversation, following my lead, chopping, dicing, and suggesting ways to help through inquiry rather than being a classic head chef barking orders and striking fear throughout the kitchen.
Who knows what would be possible in a kitchen like that? Perhaps there would be revolts, chaos, and no performance at all if we wanted to hold on to the way it’s always been. Or maybe, just maybe, there would be magic that would draw people from far and wide.
— George Brewster, Coach & Facilitator
Henley Leadership Group
Derek: One Size Doesn’t Fit All
Based on what I often hear about annual performance reviews, I recommend changing the “annual” part first. Too many clients have told me they were surprised to receive their manager’s perspective because the manager had not offered feedback all year and had waited until the review. In such cases, reviews are overly weighted by recent events when managers do not track and document their observations throughout the year.
Employees are more likely to improve with continuous feedback and support throughout the year. I recommend keeping a regular one-to-one meeting focused solely on feedback. Both the direct report and manager should come prepared with their own evaluations.
Consider changing how we approach the performance part of performance reviews. Some employees want their performance judged because that motivates them to learn, grow, and improve. For other employees, a focus on performance can unintentionally trigger anxiety that undermines performance, and managers may need to take a different approach.
Know your direct report and avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. For example, some people are naturally motivated and perform better when they see and feel the difference they make. For these folks, perhaps a “difference you make” review or an “impact review” could be more useful, or a “how you touch people’s lives” review. Think about the critical factors that pave the road to performance: taking risks, innovating, challenging the status quo, building trust, etc. There are many things that can be measured and rewarded.
Managers can also do more to support clarity about their employees’ career direction. Shift the conversation from past-based performance to future-based development. It may be more motivating for a direct report to do what’s required to get the next role rather than performing at a higher level in the current role. It’s valuable information for a manager to know where their employee intends to go next. In my experience with clients, most are uncomfortable and cautious about sharing that with their boss.
Be careful about tying employee compensation directly to performance. When financial well-being is at stake, it’s more difficult to have an open conversation about where a direct report needs to grow. Too often, opportunities for learning are overshadowed by experiences of unfairness. Ensure that achieving short-term goals does not come at the expense of other parts of the business or create long-term cultural problems, such as unhealthy intra-competitiveness.
— Derek Olsen, Coach, Facilitator, Program Delivery & Design
Henley Leadership Group
Penny: Trust Doesn’t Grow in Isolation
Trust does not grow in isolation. It grows through connection and conversation. This is a place where the traditional performance review process deeply misses the mark. The way most organizations design this process inadvertently creates deeper divides between leaders and their direct reports.
Traditionally, managers write an annual or semi-annual performance review using their organization’s template. They write about Jane Doe’s impact, her strengths, her development opportunities, and so on. They do this highly structured, performative process in isolation, one more task on the to-do list. My clients grumble, wishing it were more meaningful for their direct reports and themselves.
“It’s such a waste of time,” my clients say. “It’s so useless, and I want this to be more impactful. I want the process to create connection and build our relationship.”
On the other side of the wall, employees go through the same process. They write about their perceived impact, accomplishments, goals, and maybe where they’ve fallen short.
What I hear from clients in this position is, “I wish it wasn’t such a secret over there. There’s such a build-up to it all. I wish it was just a conversation that we returned to on a regular basis.”
Clearly, this performance, and that’s exactly what it is, a performance, does not meet anyone’s hopes and desires.
So what if it was a conversation? What if leaders made time for conversation? Writing one’s own perspective in isolation just doesn’t work. The tension it creates is a disservice to everyone.
One thing I’ve noticed that does work is a regularly scheduled time between a manager and employee to simply talk, to simply answer a few questions around what’s working and what’s not.
Where do you shine, and how do you do that?
What’s draining you, and how might we adjust that?
What should we celebrate?
And where would you like to go from here?
These simple questions help everyone.
— Penny Koch-Patterson, Director of Coaching Programs, Facilitator
Henley Leadership Group
Jon: Beyond the Performance Report
My first exposure to performance reviews came in the military. These were called fitness reports, or “fit reps,” and whoever wrote yours could make or break your advancement to the next level. I still have a book on my shelf, over 250 pages, on how to write fitness reports. Eventually, the halo effect took over. Everyone got an angelic fit rep, and the reports became perfunctory, arduous, and generally a waste of energy.
What was true 40 years ago still seems true. Most people want an honest assessment of how they are performing at work. Those closest to an individual, the people who see them every day, have the best opportunity to share what’s working, what’s not, what needs attention, what they’re sweating too much about, and what might be getting in the way of doing their best work.
Sometimes, though, what needs attention has very little to do with the work itself.
A minister I know was facing an awful situation. His 13-year-old daughter had a terminal illness. She had leukemia. Her father, my friend, not knowing what to do, stayed even longer in his office, unconsciously avoiding the painful reality that lurked at home. A church leader responsible for delivering the annual feedback entered the minister’s office late in the day.
“Time to go home, Tom,” he said.
“Yes, it’s late,” Tom responded, “and I’m very interested to know how I’m doing.”
“Tom, it’s time for you to go home, and you need to stay there until Kaitlyn is gone. Your job is secure, and it will be waiting once things settle down after her funeral. You are not allowed to work again until all of this is over.”
To me, this is leadership, the kind that knows what is going on in the life of another and can, with grace and empathy and firmness, deliver what is needed to highlight not just another’s performance, but who they are as a human being. I would strip down performance reviews to simply, “Here is how and why you matter. You matter to us, you matter to your family, you matter to the world. Here is what you do best.”
And if they ask for critique, it can come another day.
Perfunctory fitness reports be gone. Give me a human interaction.
— Jon Mullican, Organizational Development Coach & Facilitator
Henley Leadership Group
Making Performance Conversations Worth Having
Five veteran coaches with five unique perspectives. And not one suggested completely eliminating performance reviews. People still need to know how they’re doing, what’s expected of them, and where they can improve. But even the best-designed performance review is only as good as the conversations that happen around it and throughout the year. And that depends on a leader’s ability to listen, exercise good judgment, and recognize what each person needs to grow and how best to support them.
What if we measured the success of a performance conversation not simply by how accurately we assessed the past, but by how well we helped someone move forward?
Leader Reflection: Before Your Next Development Conversation
As you prepare for your next performance review, consider:
What do I know about this person? What might I want to understand better?
What are we measuring, and why? What does it tell us about this person’s contributions?
What is this person learning? Where do they want to grow, and what might help them?
How have our conversations gone throughout the year? What have we learned from each other?
What would make this conversation worthwhile for both of us?
Frequently Asked Questions About Performance Reviews
-
Start with ongoing conversations throughout the year rather than a single annual evaluation. Provide timely feedback, recognize individual strengths, ask thoughtful questions, and involve employees in identifying growth opportunities. The goal is shared understanding and clear next steps, not ticking boxes on a report.
-
A performance review typically assesses past accomplishments against established expectations. A development conversation explores what someone is learning, where they want to grow, and what support they need. A well-designed performance review can accomplish both.
-
Feedforward is an approach that focuses on what someone can do differently in the future rather than what they did wrong in the past. Instead of reviewing mistakes, it offers suggestions and ideas to help someone learn, grow, and improve. While the concept has a longer history, leadership coach Marshall Goldsmith helped bring it into leadership development and coaching conversations.
-
Compensation and development conversations serve different purposes. When combined, employees may focus on defending past performance or negotiating a raise rather than discussing growth. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) recommends separating them to encourage honest feedback while maintaining accountability. Performance can still inform compensation decisions, but these discussions may be more productive when held separately.
What if your next performance review opened the door to a better conversation?
Performance reviews are meant to help people grow, yet too often they become an exercise in rehashing the past rather than exploring what’s possible. What might change if leaders approached these conversations by asking questions, carefully listening, understanding what matters to each person, and exploring where they might go next?
For more than two decades, Seattle-based Henley Leadership Group has helped leaders and teams build trust, strengthen relationships, and create environments where people can do their best work.
If you’d like to explore how to bring more meaningful developmental conversations to your team or organization, we’d love to begin with a 30-minute conversation. Let’s talk.