A performance review is a structured evaluation of an employee's work over a defined period, typically tied to compensation, promotion.
A performance review is a structured, periodic evaluation of an employee's contributions, behaviors, and growth against expectations. The output typically informs compensation adjustments, promotion decisions, and development plans. Most companies run cycles annually or semi-annually; some have moved to lightweight quarterly check-ins. The mechanics vary — self-assessments, manager reviews, peer feedback, calibration meetings — but the underlying question is the same: what did this person deliver, how did they deliver it, and what should change next cycle.
A functional review process has four parts: (1) Self-assessment — the employee writes what they delivered and how against the ladder. (2) Manager assessment — the manager writes their view, including examples and ratings. (3) Peer feedback — 3-5 colleagues provide input on collaboration and impact. (4) Calibration — managers meet to normalize ratings across the org so 'exceeds expectations' means the same thing on every team. Skipping calibration is the most common failure mode; without it, ratings become manager-dependent and lose credibility.
Combining performance feedback, compensation decisions, and promotion decisions into one conversation reduces the quality of all three. Best practice: deliver feedback in one meeting, communicate comp/promotion decisions in a separate meeting 1-2 weeks later. When people know a comp number is coming, they don't hear the feedback. Some companies decouple entirely: continuous feedback throughout the year, comp decisions on a separate cycle informed by (but not identical to) performance ratings.
Common scales: 3-point (below/meets/exceeds), 5-point (with 'significantly below' and 'significantly exceeds' additions), or narrative-only. 3-point is simplest and forces clear differentiation but compresses distinctions at the top. 5-point provides granularity but invites debates over 4-vs-5 that don't change outcomes. Narrative-only feels humane but makes calibration impossible and leaves comp decisions arbitrary. Most companies land on 3 or 5 buckets; forcing a bell-curve distribution ('stack ranking') is controversial and generally destroys team trust.
A well-run review cycle consumes 15-30 hours of manager time per direct report across writing, calibration, and delivery. For a manager of 8, that's a full month of work concentrated into 3-4 weeks. Companies underestimate this cost and then wonder why reviews are late, low-quality, or skipped. If reviews matter, protect the calendar time; if you can't protect the time, run reviews less frequently or with lighter-weight processes.
Reviews should not be the first time an employee hears feedback — surprises in a review indicate a broken 1:1 process. Reviews should not be the primary tool for managing out low performers — that requires direct, real-time conversation, not a semi-annual document. Reviews should not attempt to summarize an entire year in one meeting — human memory is recency-biased, so structured note-taking throughout the year is essential.
Investor directory · Fundraising library · Articles A–Z · Company funding database