Purpose

The performance review exists to:

• Create a structured moment for reflection on a defined period
• Formally recognise what the person has contributed and how they have operated
• Identify what has worked and what needs to change
• Connect the period's performance to the person's development and career direction
• Produce a documented record that is fair, accurate, and useful

What it is not for:

• Delivering information the person has never heard before
• Justifying a rating you have already decided on
• Covering the organisation's legal exposure
• Telling someone how the organisation feels about them after twelve months of silence

If your review conversation is the first time someone is hearing a concern about their performance, the review process has failed. The conversation itself has failed. You have failed them.

The review should feel like a structured retrospective on a period both parties have been navigating together, not a tribunal.

When to Use This Playbook

Cadence:

Most organisations run formal reviews once or twice a year:

• End-of-year review - full retrospective on the year, rating, development plan direction
• Mid-year review - progress check, course correction, no rating in most organisations

Both follow the same basic structure. The end-of-year review carries more weight and typically informs compensation, progression, and formal development commitments.

Who initiates:

The review is triggered by the organisation's cycle. You do not wait to be told - you own the calendar.

When to do an off-cycle review:

• Someone is returning from extended leave and needs a recalibration
• A role changes significantly mid-cycle
• Someone is on a PIP and the review is a formal checkpoint
• You are managing a new person who was not reviewed by their previous manager in the recent cycle

Before You Start

Your preparation (do this at least three days before the conversation)

• Gather evidence from the whole period, not just the last few weeks - recency bias is real and damaging
• Pull up your 1:1 notes from the period - what did you observe, what did they tell you?
• Look at the commitments and goals set at the last review - how did they land?
• Collect feedback from peers, stakeholders, and anyone else who has direct visibility of this person's work
• Review the level expectations for their role and level - assess against the criteria, not against other people
• Draft your assessment before writing the review document - think, then write, not write to think
• Be honest with yourself about where you might be biased - halo effect, recency, similarity bias

Common bias traps to check yourself against:

Ask the person to self-assess

Before the conversation, send them the review form and ask them to complete a self-assessment. Give them enough time - at least a week. Explain:

• This is not a negotiation starting position
• You genuinely want to understand how they see the period
• Their self-assessment will inform the conversation, not replace it

Where your assessment and theirs diverge significantly, that divergence is the most important part of the conversation.

The document

Write your assessment before the conversation. Do not write it in the meeting. The meeting is for conversation, not dictation. The document should:

• Be specific - name actual work, actual behaviours, actual outcomes
• Be balanced - strengths and development areas with equal rigour
• Be evidence-based - tie everything back to something observable
• Be written for the person, not for the HR file

The Process

Step 1 - Set the tone (5 minutes)

Open by framing what the conversation is for and how you want to run it.

"This is a chance for us to reflect on the past [period] together. I want to hear your view first before I share mine. There will be nothing in what I share that you haven't heard before - my job through the year is to make sure there are no surprises here. Let's start with how you've experienced the period."

This does three things: it signals the format (their view first), it sets expectations (no surprises), and it hands them the opening.

Step 2 - Hear their self-assessment (10-15 minutes)

Ask them to walk you through how they see the period. Do not interrupt. Take notes. Listen for:

• Where they are proud and confident
• Where they are uncertain or apologetic about their performance
• Where their view of their contribution differs from yours
• What they attribute their results to - themselves, the team, the context

Questions to draw out their self-assessment:

• "Walk me through how you'd describe the past [period] in your own words."
• "What are you most proud of from this period?"
• "Where do you feel you fell short of what you wanted to deliver?"
• "Is there anything you think I might have a different view on than you do?"
• "What do you think has had the biggest impact on your performance this period, in either direction?"

Do not share your view yet. Just listen.

Step 3 - Share your assessment (15-20 minutes)

Now share yours. Start with what is strong. Be specific. Name the work, name the behaviour, name the impact.

"I want to share what I've seen from my perspective. I'll go through the main dimensions and then we can discuss where we see things differently."

Structure for sharing your assessment:

1. What you observed in their work and delivery
2. What you observed in how they operated - their approach, their collaboration, their communication
3. Where you think they have grown or developed this period
4. Where you think there is the most opportunity for the next period
5. The rating, and how you arrived at it

On the rating:

Present the rating after you have shared the evidence, not before. The evidence should lead to the rating; the rating should not require the evidence to justify it. If you find yourself saying "I gave you an X because..." and then searching for reasons, you are doing it backwards.

Say the rating clearly. Do not soften it to the point of ambiguity. "Meets expectations" should sound like a positive recognition of solid performance, not an apology. "Below expectations" should be said directly and compassionately.

Step 4 - Handle disagreement (if needed)

Disagreement on rating is normal. The self-assessment exists partly to surface this so it is not a shock.

When they disagree:

• Listen to their reasoning fully before responding
• Ask what evidence they would point to that you might be missing
• Check your own position - have they raised something that genuinely changes your view?
• If their evidence is valid and you had not considered it, say so and adjust if warranted
• If you have considered it and your view holds, explain why clearly and specifically
• Do not capitulate to avoid discomfort - an inflated rating to end the conversation causes more harm than the discomfort of holding your position

A useful phrase when holding your position: "I've heard what you've said and I want to make sure I've understood it correctly. My view is still [X] because [specific evidence]. I understand we see this differently."

Document the disagreement in the review record. The person has the right to have their view noted.

Step 5 - Connect to development and the next period (10 minutes)

Once the assessment of the period is done, turn to what comes next. This is not a separate conversation - it flows from the review.

• What are one or two things they want to develop in the next period?
• What would a strong performance look like in the next six to twelve months?
• What support do they need from you?
• Is there a progression conversation that should happen?

Do not make development commitments here that you cannot keep. If they raise a career aspiration that is complex to address, acknowledge it and make an explicit commitment to a separate conversation.

Step 6 - Close and confirm next steps (5 minutes)

Summarise what you have agreed. Confirm what is being documented and what the next steps are.

• Is there anything they want to add to the formal record?
• Are they clear on the rating and the reasoning?
• What happens next - is there a compensation conversation, a development plan session, a follow-up?
• When do they see the finalised document?

Mid-year vs End-of-year

The mid-year is your chance to correct course before the year is locked. If someone is heading toward a difficult year-end rating, the mid-year is your last opportunity to be honest about that and give them a real chance to change it. A mid-year conversation that says "everything is great" when the year-end will say otherwise is a management failure.

What to Do When You Have to Deliver a Difficult Rating

Delivering a below-expectations rating is uncomfortable. The discomfort is appropriate - it means you are taking it seriously. But discomfort should not make you avoid the conversation, soften the message to meaninglessness, or rush through it.

Before the conversation:

• Brief your HR business partner or people team - they should know this is coming
• Make sure the evidence is solid, specific, and documented
• Be clear on what support has been offered and what has been done
• Prepare yourself for an emotional response - surprise, upset, defensiveness, anger - and plan to hold the space without escalating

In the conversation:

Say it directly, early, and compassionately.

"I want to be upfront with you about where I've landed. My assessment is that this period has been below what I'd expect at your level. I know that's hard to hear. I want to take you through my reasoning and I want to hear your perspective."

Do not bury it. Do not spend twenty minutes on positives and then drop it at the end. The person knows something is wrong by the length of the preamble.

After the conversation:

• Give them time to process
• Follow up in writing with clarity on what the rating is and what it means
• Be explicit about what happens next - is this a formal process? A PDP? A performance conversation?
• Do not leave ambiguity about the consequences of the rating

What Good Looks Like

• The person was not surprised by anything in the conversation
• They were heard - their self-assessment was engaged with, not dismissed
• The rating was delivered clearly and the reasoning was specific and evidenced
• Development direction was agreed, not just mentioned
• Both parties left knowing what happens next
• The documentation is accurate, specific, and something the person could read and recognise as a fair account

Common Failures

Failure 1 - The sandwich

What it is: Positive, negative, positive - designed to soften the blow of the difficult thing.

Why it fails: The person knows the structure. They hear the first positive and wait for the "but." The final positive lands as hollow. The difficult thing in the middle gets diluted.

What to do instead: Be direct. Share your view clearly and in the right order. Positives are real - state them fully. Development areas are real - state them fully. Do not weave them together to manage your own discomfort.

Failure 2 - Vague feedback

What it is: "You could work on your communication skills." "You need to be more visible with stakeholders." "There were some issues with delivery."

Why it fails: It is not actionable. The person does not know what you observed, when, or what it looked like. They cannot change something they cannot see.

What to do instead: Name specific incidents, specific behaviours, specific impacts. "In the Q3 planning session, I noticed that you presented the proposal without the supporting data, and the stakeholders pushed back. That happened twice this period and the pattern affected the credibility of the team's recommendations."

Failure 3 - Recency bias

What it is: The review is shaped by the last month, even though it covers twelve months.

Why it fails: Someone who had a strong first three quarters and a difficult final quarter gets rated on the difficult quarter. The reverse is also true - a difficult first three quarters and a strong finish can inflate a rating unfairly.

What to do instead: Review your notes from the whole period before you write anything. Deliberately assess each quarter or phase before arriving at an overall view.

Failure 4 - Avoiding the rating

What it is: The rating is mentioned so briefly and softly that the person is not clear what it is. Or it is contextualised so heavily that its meaning is lost.

Why it fails: The person does not have the information they need. They may leave thinking the rating was different from what it was.

What to do instead: Say the rating clearly. Confirm the person has heard and understood it. "To be explicit: your rating for this period is Meets Expectations. That means [explanation of what that means in the context of your org]."

Failure 5 - Using the review to surprise with a serious concern

What it is: The manager uses the annual review to formally raise a performance issue that should have been raised months ago.

Why it fails: The person has had no opportunity to address it. The manager has abdicated their responsibility to give timely feedback. The review becomes a verdict, not a reflection.

What to do instead: Raise performance concerns when you see them. The review should be the summary of things that have been discussed, not the first airing of concerns.

Checklist

Three days before:

• Gathered evidence from the whole period, not just recent memory
• Reviewed 1:1 notes and any previous feedback
• Reviewed the goals set at the last review
• Collected peer and stakeholder feedback
• Checked for common biases in my assessment
• Written my assessment document before the conversation
• Confirmed the person has had time to complete their self-assessment

Day of the conversation:

• Opened by framing the purpose and format
• Heard their self-assessment before sharing mine
• Started with what is strong - specifically and genuinely
• Shared the development areas with specific evidence
• Stated the rating clearly
• Addressed any disagreement directly and with evidence
• Connected the review to the next period and development direction
• Closed with clear next steps and what they can expect

After the conversation:

• Finalised the review document with any agreed additions
• Confirmed the timeline for when they will see the final document
• Followed up in writing if there was a difficult rating
• Briefed HR if formal follow-up is required
• Scheduled the development conversation if not covered today

Quick Reference - Question Bank

To open

• "Walk me through how you'd describe this period in your own words."
• "What are you most proud of from the last [period]?"
• "Where do you feel you fell short of what you wanted?"

To probe the self-assessment

• "Is there anywhere you think your view and mine might differ?"
• "What do you attribute that result to?"
• "What would you do differently if you could go back?"

To handle disagreement

• "Help me understand what evidence you'd point to."
• "I want to make sure I've understood your view correctly before I respond."
• "I've considered what you've said and my view is still because [Y]. I understand we see this differently."

To connect to development

• "What do you most want to develop in the next period?"
• "What would strong performance look like from where you're standing next year?"
• "What do you need from me to get there?"

To close

• "Is there anything you want added to the record?"
• "Are you clear on the rating and what it means?"
• "What do you need from me before the next formal moment?"

The Continuous Nature of the Review Process

A common mistake is to treat performance management as something that happens at review time. It does not. The review is a formal point in a continuous process.

What should be happening between reviews:

• Ongoing feedback - specific, timely, connected to observable behaviour and outcomes
• Regular 1:1s where performance-relevant observations are shared as they happen
• Mid-year conversations that name how the year is going and what needs to change
• Development plan reviews that track growth against the commitments made at the last review

If all of that is happening, the formal review conversation is relatively straightforward - both parties have been living the assessment, not discovering it.

If none of that is happening, the formal review carries too much weight. It becomes the only moment of real honesty in the year. That puts pressure on the conversation that it cannot sustain, and it puts the person in an unfair position.

The practical implication: If you are heading into a review cycle and you have not been having the ongoing conversations, the review is a moment to reset - not just to assess. Be honest about that: "I want this review to be more useful than just a rating. I'd also like us to talk about what I can do better to support you through the next period."

Documentation Standards

What goes in the review document matters. It is a record that the person can read and that your organisation will retain.

Principles:

• Specific - name the work, the project, the meeting, the outcome. Not "contributed well to team delivery" but "led the migration of [system] to [platform] in Q2, delivered on time and with no production incidents."
• Evidence-based - every claim should connect to something observable. If you cannot point to evidence, do not make the claim.
• Balanced - strengths and development areas with equal specificity. A review that is glowing on strengths and vague on development is not honest. A review that is harsh on development and vague on strengths is demoralising and unfair.
• Written for the person - the document should read as something written to help the person understand their performance and what comes next, not as a record written to protect the organisation.

What not to include:

• Personality judgements without behavioural grounding ("she can be difficult" - say what the behaviour is and what the impact was)
• Hearsay - only include feedback you can stand behind with evidence
• Comparisons to other people - assess against the level expectations, not against peers