How to Improve Review Systems

Performance reviews often leave people deflated. But the ones that inspire? They focus on potential, not just performance. Here’s how to create those conversations: 1 / Be specific about what you observed Use the SBI model to share it clearly. → Situation: When and where it happened → Behavior: What you observed, not your interpretation → Impact: How it affected the team or results 2 / Challenge them because you care Radical Candor isn’t about being nice or tough.  It’s about doing both. → Make criticism immediate and specific → Show you care about their growth → Praise publicly, critique privately 3 / Use language that opens doors The words you choose shape how people receive feedback. → “You’re not good at this” shuts people down → “You haven’t mastered this yet” creates possibility → That one word — yet — shifts everything 4 / Don’t hide feedback between compliments People remember the start and end better than the middle. → Give praise when you mean it → Give constructive criticism when it’s needed → Keep them separate 5 / Focus on where they’re going When the conversation is about the future, it motivates. → What would success look like for you? → What support do you need to get there? → What skills do you want to develop? 6 / Ask for their perspective too Performance reviews shouldn’t be one-sided. → Have them complete a self-assessment first → Compare notes together in the meeting → They often already know what needs to improve Performance reviews don’t have to be dreaded. Your team wants honest feedback. They just want it delivered in a way that sees their potential, not just their mistakes. ♻️ If this resonates, repost for your network. 📌 Follow Amy Gibson for more leadership insights.

Most performance reviews try to do two jobs at once: 1️⃣ Pick between people for pay, promotion, and roles. 2️⃣ Develop people by finding strengths and gaps. These goals pull in opposite directions. Why this clash happens (brain + math): 🧠 Brain: When a review affects your pay or job, your brain reads it as a threat. Stress goes up. Learning shuts down. Feedback feels like a warning, not help. 🔢 Math: If you focus on ranking people clearly, everyone’s profile looks the same and you lose detail about strengths and weaknesses. If you focus on rich, detailed feedback, clear rankings get fuzzy. You can’t optimize both at the same time. The fix isn’t “blend them better.” You need a third way. Build two separate tracks with different goals, timing, and rules. Track A — Allocate (between people) - Purpose: pay, promotion, role, and staffing decisions. - Timing: set times (e.g., twice a year). - Evidence: common criteria and comparisons across people. - Norms: fairness, consistency, clear documentation. Track B — Develop (within people) - Purpose: growth, new skills, behavior change. - Timing: ongoing, low‑stakes coaching in regular 1:1s. - Evidence: specific behaviors and goals; focus on the future (“feedforward”). - Norms: psychological safety, curiosity, experimentation. Design moves that make it work: 👉 Separate the moments: Never mix ratings or money talks with coaching time. 👉 Separate the artifacts: Use different forms and language for each track. 👉 Separate the roles: Talent review leaders handle Track A; managers/peers coach in Track B. 👉 Give employees a voice: Enable upward feedback and self‑nominations for growth or promotion. 👉 Aim at behavior and the future: Be specific about what to try next, not who someone “is.” Employee gut‑check: “Is this feedback or a warning?” If people can’t tell, the system isn’t truly separate yet. When we honor the polarity—allocate separately, develop safely—performance management can actually serve both business goals. #EmployeeExperience #PerformanceManagement #Leadership #HR

I audited 50+ performance programs. Here’s what I found. After interviewing to people leaders at companies sized 50 to 5,000 employees in tech, healthcare, AI, consulting, construction, manufacturing, finance about their programs—the patterns are the same. Want to see how you stack up? Comment AUDIT and I’ll send you my link 1) Tools exist. Engagement does not. Templates, cycles, and docs live next to the work, not in it. Managers see “another form,” or an "extra thing" not a tool that makes them better managers. 🛠️ The fix: Add lightweight checkpoints in the flow of work; auto-prompt managers & employees on real milestones (1:1s, project/sprint end); use AI to surface likely evidence from notes/goals so feedback isn’t a blank page. 2) Foundations for fair promotion decisions are still lacking. Promotion gates aren’t tied to clear, leveled behaviors, so calibration becomes a lengthy and costly debate. On top of it, most employees can’t see the bar. 🛠️ The fix: Publish transparent levels (scope, autonomy, outcomes) and a leveled rubric; rate against competencies (with 2–3 evidence bullets), not just an overall label; performance feedback monthly; Stop 9-boxing. 3) Individual performance ≠ company results. Most companies have some version of goals, but most employee goals are often bottom-up and unverified (yet performance is still measured against these). 🛠️ The fix: Use a light cascade (company → function → team → individual) OR stop at team; combine goal attainment and competency rating as separate, weighted inputs to an overall score. 4) Managers don’t see value (and it’s an expensive process). Hours spent writing narratives for their reviews then sitting in calibration to justify gut feel. Most of this effort does not improve business outcomes. 🛠️ The fix: Pre-calibrate folks against clearly defined performance rubrics; Use "calibration" as-needed, not after every review; leverage AI to flag outliers and synthesize themes for managers to verify. 5) “Continuous” is the goal but still not operationalized. Most programs still run in bursts; the system doesn’t generate small, in-flow signals between cycles. 🛠️ The fix: Make feedback embedded, prompted, and auto-aggregated from the work you already do. Continuous = ongoing signals, not more meetings. TL;DR Less form, more signal. A level-based structure. Embedded prompts. Short, regular performance (feedback) loops. If you want a quick, no-fluff audit with a maturity score and top 3 priorities—comment AUDIT and I’ll send a calendar link.

"Why does our top performer get the worst reviews?" the VP asked me. I was reviewing their annual performance data. "Show me," I said. She pulled up the ratings. Diana: 2.8 out of 5. Below average on "collaboration." Low marks for "team player." "What's her actual performance?" I asked. "Exceeded every target. Landed our biggest client. Trained three new hires." "So why the low scores?" "Her peer reviews are dragging her down." I scanned the comments. "Too direct." "Challenges ideas too much." "Not supportive enough." "Let me talk to Diana," I said. "I used to give honest feedback," Diana told me. "Said our pricing model was broken. Got dinged for 'negativity.'" "What happened with the pricing?" "They finally fixed it six months later. After we lost two major accounts." "What else?" "I questioned why we needed  eleven approvals for a simple contract change. Manager said I wasn't being collaborative." "Are you still giving feedback?" "No. I learned my lesson. Now I smile. Nod. Say everything's great. My reviews are improving." "But nothing's actually improving?" "We're making the same mistakes. Just with better vibes." She chuckled. I went back to the VP. "Your review system doesn't measure performance," I said. "It measures compliance." "That's not true." "When was the last time someone got promoted for challenging bad ideas?" Silence. "When did someone get rewarded for preventing a mistake?" More silence. "You've trained your best people to stay quiet. And your mediocre people to stay nice." A few months later, they redesigned the system. Added a category: "Constructive Challenge." Points for identifying problems early. Rewards for preventing costly mistakes. Diana got promoted. "What changed?" I asked the VP. "We stopped confusing agreement with alignment. Stopped mistaking silence for harmony." "And?" "Turns out our 'difficult' people were our most valuable. They actually cared enough to speak up." Here's the truth about performance reviews: Most companies don't reward performance. They reward performance theater. The person who says the meeting was great beats the person who says it wasted an hour. The person who agrees with bad ideas beats the person who prevents disasters. You think you're measuring contribution. You're measuring conformity. And your best people? They've already figured out the game. They're just deciding whether to play it or find somewhere that values truth over comfort. _____ Like my content? Give me a follow. Want to see more of it? Click the 🔔 on my profile.

If someone is surprised by the feedback they receive, this is a management failure. After witnessing multiple instances of this failure at Amazon, we realized our feedback mechanism was deeply flawed. So, we fixed it. In order for the organization to perform at its highest, employees need to know not only what is expected of them, but also how those expectations will be measured. Too often, managers assume that capable people will simply “figure things out,” but this is difficult and destined to fail without explicit expectations and continuous feedback. I remember the experience of an employee we can call “Melinda.” She had been a strong performer for two years before she transitioned into a new role on another team. She attacked the new opportunity with enthusiasm, working long hours and believing she was on the right track. Then, her manager expressed concerns about her performance and the criticism came as a shock. The feedback was vague, and there had been no regular check-ins or early signs to help her course-correct. This caused her motivation to suffer and her performance declined significantly. Eventually, she left the company. Afterward, we conducted a full review and we discovered that Melinda’s manager had never clearly articulated the expectations of the new role. Worse, her previous achievements had been disregarded in her evaluation. The system had failed her. This incident was not isolated. It illustrated a pattern. It revealed broader gaps in how we managed performance transitions and feedback loops. So, in response, we developed and deployed new mechanisms to ensure clarity from day one. We began requiring managers to explicitly define role expectations and conduct structured check-ins during an employee’s first 90 days in a new position. We also reinforced the cultural norm that feedback must be timely, specific, and actionable. These changes were rooted in a core principle of leadership: you have to make others successful too. Good management does not involve catching people off guard or putting them in “sink or swim” situations. When employees fail because expectations were unclear, that failure belongs to the manager. The best thing to do when you see those failures is to treat them as systems to improve. That’s how you build a culture of high performance.

Performance reviews are fundamentally broken. Instead of unlocking greatness, they've become exercises in mediocrity enforcement. The reason is that HR departments are secretly uncomfortable with the idea of an organization full of spiky, 10x performers. Most performance reviews obsess over "areas of improvement" – corporate speak for "here's what's wrong with you." We've normalized a system that prioritizes fixing perceived weaknesses over amplifying unique strengths. The real question we should be asking in reviews: "What makes this person extraordinary?" "Where are they world-class?" "What's their unique spike that we should be doubling down on?" We should be asking: "What annoyances are you willing to tolerate in return for this greatness?" When we hire, we look for 10x talent. We seek out people who are exceptional in specific ways. People with distinctive spikes of brilliance. But the moment these people join? We start trying to sand down their edges. Our performance review systems are essentially machines for "regression to the mean." Why are HR departments uncomfortable with 10x folks?? Because they're: - Harder to manage predictably - Full of rough edges - Operating with non-standard working styles But here's the thing: those "difficulties" are often the exact same qualities that make these people exceptional at what they do. We need to stop asking "How do we fix this person's imperfections?" and start asking "How do we amplify what makes them incredible?" It's time to shift our focus from creating perfect "corporate citizens" to nurturing extraordinary craftspeople. Let's celebrate the weird thinkers, the square pegs, the ones who see things differently. Your performance review system either builds toward mediocrity or unleashes excellence. Choose wisely. The future belongs to organizations that know how to amplify individual genius, not suppress it.

"I'm firing her if the quality of the documentation doesn't improve,” a pharma exec told me during a discovery call. The "her"? A brilliant scientist. PhD in molecular biology. Multiple published papers. Leading research on a breakthrough compound. But apparently, she couldn't write a clinical study protocol to save her life. I took a deep breath. "Before we discuss firing anyone, how many rounds of revision does a typical protocol go through?" “Eight to twelve,” he sighed. "And how many reviewers?" "Usually ten." "Do they provide consistent feedback?" His uncomfortable silence told me everything. I dug deeper and found: - No clear templates or guidelines in place - Different departments had conflicting expectations - Reviewers rewrote sections instead of providing feedback - The "poor writing" was actually unclear organizational standards "Let me be direct," I said. "Firing your scientist won't solve this. She's not the problem – your documentation process is." I could see the wheels turning. "Here's what I've learned from 25 years in pharma: - Academic writing skills don't translate to regulatory documents - Without clear standards, writers waste time guessing what reviewers want - Poor documentation processes cost you talent, delay submissions, and burn millions" "What's the solution?" he asked. I explained how writing is an ecosystem: - Start with critical thinking (because writing is clear thinking) - Create templates that guide, not just format - Train reviewers to give actionable feedback - Build a culture where everyone rows together Because here's the truth: Your scientists aren't bad writers. Your reviewers aren't trying to be difficult. They just need a system that works. When you build on critical thinking... When your writers have clear direction... When your processes make sense... That's when documentation becomes part of your culture, not a bottleneck in your pipeline.

I once gave an employee a review that made him hate me. It didn’t matter that I was right. Here’s how you can do better: As a new manager, I thought my job was to figure out where people were "doing things wrong" and then tell them. I was managing an older, experienced engineer with a lot of knowledge and skills. I did not think about how hard it must be to have a younger, less experienced manager give you feedback in the first place. Then, I focused his review on what I saw as weaknesses and how he could change and improve. It didn't matter if my feedback was "right" or not. I demolished any trust or respect he may have had for me, so there was no chance he would listen to anything I had to say. Last week, I wrote a newsletter about what you can do to ensure you get a good performance review. This week, I want to share how you can give a good review to your reports. I will share my perspective here to introduce our guest newsletter from Jess Goldberg, which focuses on giving good, individualized feedback. Here are the 3 most important parts of giving a review: 1) Reviews require trust! No one can hear feedback if it comes from someone they do not believe has their best interest at heart. This is where I lost my employee - I did not establish that I recognized his valuable experience and tenure, so he didn’t trust me to give him feedback. 2) Never surprise someone with a review. Good managers give feedback frequently, both positive and corrective. Corrective feedback is backed up by clear examples and is delivered as soon as is practical. Surprising someone with bad news or a low rating is inexcusable as a manager. Employees should know where they stand before their official review rolls around. 3) Emphasize the positives. For a while, I gave employees their reviews in two pieces. Amazon employees tended to skim past all their strengths to quickly look at where they could improve, so I used to give them the strengths part a few hours or a day before I gave them the areas for improvement. My goal was to ensure they really digested and internalized where they were doing well. This practice was in contrast to the failure in my story, where I saw my job as simply pointing out where the engineer on my team needed to improve. More than 25 years later, I still feel bad about that review. The best I can say is that I learned and improved as a result. Today's guest newsletter is from Jess Goldberg, a leadership communication expert, company trainer, and executive coach. Her article goes deep into how you can deliver effective employee feedback across the performance spectrum. The newsletter includes a visual model that will help you tailor feedback to the specific situations, as well as FAQs about how to best deliver feedback. You can read the newsletter here: https://lnkd.in/gE2Bvacv Leaders - what else is essential for giving a good review? What mistakes have you made?

🚀 User reviews are the compass for how well our product truly performs. But getting those reviews? Yep… usually a painful process. Either you dig through your own database, or you integrate multiple sources just to collect scattered insights. And if you want to monitor competitor products too? Even more painful. Right? 😅 So I built a smart automated workflow to solve this once and for all. I’m using Google Sheets as a central URL database, making it super easy for other teams to add or update product URLs without touching n8n. Then comes the fun part: Using Decodo, the workflow scrapes the reviews and structures them cleanly. This one is breakthrough brooooo. After that, AI sentiment analysis kicks in, giving me high-level insights and summaries in seconds. ✨ What this solves: - No more manual digging through reviews - Zero engineering overhead for data updates - Shared access for cross-team collaboration - Fast understanding of customer sentiment I’ve published this workflow so you can try it too. If you’ve already used it, I’d love to hear: How did this automation improve your productivity? https://lnkd.in/g2nhkiV9 Let’s make review monitoring smarter, not harder. 💡

➝ Is your feedback culture suffocating talent? Time to break free from toxic reviews. All of us have experienced increasing stress levels when appraisals are announced. While performance reviews are important to check for alignment with current and future goals, and to develop employee growth strategies, an annual or 'calendar' event hardly serves the purpose. A feedback review is not a forum for passing judgement just because you as a leader are seemingly in a position to do it. This brings us to the question - how do we fix it? why is regular feedback important? Simple - it drives growth and improves performance. Yet many companies still rely on outdated annual reviews that cause stress and fail to make a real impact. How can we fix this? By making feedback a normal, regular occurrence. This means: 1. Training managers to give specific, actionable feedback regularly 2. Encouraging employees to seek feedback proactively 3. Creating a safe space for open, honest conversations What's expected from both sides? Reviewers should: - Focus on behaviors, not personality - Offer constructive suggestions - Listen actively Reviewees should: - Be open to criticism - Ask clarifying questions - Commit to actionable steps Real-world example: At Pixar, they use "plussing" - a technique where team members build on each other's ideas without using negative language. This has created a culture of continuous improvement and innovation. Remember, feedback isn't about judgment. It's about helping each other grow. Start small - perhaps with weekly check-ins. Over time, you'll see a shift from dreading feedback to acting upon it. Are you ready to transform your feedback culture? ♻️ Find this valuable? Repost to share with others. ➝ Follow Amer Nizamuddin for more insights #leadership #feedbackculture #wisdomquant