A review brings together expectations, work evidence and next steps. It can inform development and organisational decisions, but a form alone does not remove subjective judgement. Explain the purpose, criteria and use of results before starting.
Match cadence to the work
CIPD describes performance management as an ongoing process. A formal review may run once or twice a year, with shorter conversations between reviews. These are options, not universal rules based on company size.
| Need | Possible format |
|---|---|
| Review a longer period | Annual or semiannual review |
| Revisit changing project goals | Brief milestone review |
| Address current obstacles and support | Regular one-on-ones |
A first review can establish expectations even without an earlier measurement. Later reviews can show change when criteria and conditions are comparable.
Define criteria and perspectives
Separate outcomes, behaviours and working conditions. A missed goal may reflect missing resources. Collaboration ratings cannot replace evidence about task outcomes. Criteria should be relevant to the role and clear to participants.
Self and manager perspectives may be enough for an initial conversation. Add raters where they contribute relevant observations. See 360 reviews and competency profiles.
Prepare the first cycle
- State the purpose, reference period, criteria and report audience.
- Explain links to pay, promotion and development. Do not promise development-only use if other decisions are planned.
- Pilot questions and completion time. Allow people to indicate insufficient observation.
- Help managers use examples and recognise rating biases, including overemphasis on recent events.
- Schedule conversations and action reviews, not just form deadlines.
Discuss the result
Ask for specific situations and let the employee add context or correct factual errors. Different perspectives do not automatically mean one party is wrong. In international teams, confirm that expectations and rating labels have the same meaning across locations.
It can help to separate a development discussion from pay negotiation. This does not prohibit using appropriate work evidence in compensation decisions; the rules and criteria need to be clear.
What should remain after the review?
Agreed expectations, relevant observations and an individual development plan with support, ownership and a review date. One-on-ones support work between formal cycles.
Create an account and prepare a review cycle. Automation helps organise the process; people remain responsible for interpretation and conversation.
Sources and scope
These sources support the principles discussed here. Examples and schedules are starting points to adapt, not standards or evidence that our templates have been validated.
