Why Everyone Hates Performance Reviews (And How to Fix Them)

The performance reviews paradox: everyone hates them, but almost everyone still does them.

Performance reviews have been dying for a decade, and yet they keep showing up on calendars every year like clockwork.

That contradiction is the story of modern performance management. Organizations want something more human, more continuous, and more motivating while still needing a system that supports pay decisions, promotions, development, and (in some cases) tough calls about performance.

And that makes sense: organizations can’t run compensation, promotion, succession planning, or documentation purely on vibes. Even if you shift toward continuous conversations, you still need a moment of record.

But, here’s what performance reviews currently feel like to your teams:  

• A high-stakes surprise exam.

• A calibration exercise where the outcome was decided before the meeting.

• A moment that should have been coaching but arrived as judgment.

So, how do we design performance reviews so they can effectively benefit both the organization and the employees, without them feeling bureaucratic and judgmental? Let’s dive in.

The most common performance review process

Most organizations still have some kind of formal review process in place. It usually involves an annual check-in, SMART goal setting, and keeping track of it all in a tool (HCM software, OKR system, Excel sheet, etc.)

How successful are performance reviews today?

“Success” depends on what you measure.  

If the goal is documentation + pay/promotion:

Reviews are still used heavily (and sometimes aggressively), especially where organizations want consistency, legal defensibility, and structured comp cycles.

If the goal is motivation and growth:

Perception is often poor. Gallup has reported only 2% of CHROs believe their current performance management system works, and only 14% of employees strongly agree reviews inspire them to improve.

This also aligns with the global disengagement crisis which (surprise, surprise) dropped again in 2025. We’re seeing an even bigger drop among younger generations:  

In summary – performance reviews are not as successful as they could be. This is mostly because:  

• Feedback is often untimely, unclear, and misaligned.

• Employee recognition is limited, or non-existent.

• Manager coaching capability varies widely between teams.

• Tools get adopted without a coherent “why”.

• Individual goals are not aligned with business strategies.

The hard truth: reviews aren’t motivating most people

This doesn’t mean “no one should do reviews.” It means the traditional design (annual, backward-looking, surprise-filled, manager-dependent) doesn’t reliably create growth or engagement.

So, what does?

What employees want (and what Reddit makes painfully clear)  

Across Reddit threads, you see the same themes repeating:

1) “Don’t surprise me.”

Employees can handle tough feedback. What they can’t handle is late feedback.

When people describe being crushed or blindsided, the common thread is that the review delivered information that should have been addressed months earlier (in 1:1s, in the moment, or clearer expectations).

2) “Make it fair and consistent.”

One of the most corrosive moments is when effort and performance don’t translate into outcomes, and the process feels like a black box.

A Reddit thread discussing calibration captures a common employee takeaway: reviews can feel like a “dog and pony show” when promotions/raises/bonuses don’t follow.

3) “If this affects my career, give me a path, not a label.”

Employees want:

• Expectations that are concrete

• Examples that are specific

• Actions that are achievable

• Support that is real

Otherwise, “needs improvement” becomes a warning without a roadmap.

4) “Tie it to growth and opportunity, not just judgment.”

Reviews matter because they affect pay, promotions, and future opportunities. When that link is fuzzy (or when reviews feel disconnected from rewards), employees disengage fast.

5) “My annual performance review makes me want to do my job worse.”

Employees get demotivated when they take on extra scope (like absorbing a former manager’s workload) and get nothing in return. Or deliver strong results and still receive a “meets expectations” rating based on criteria they were never told mattered.  

And when performance management is used as a workforce-shaping tool, employees become more fearful and more performative, not more effective.  

The modern model that works: two systems, not one  

Stop trying to make one conversation do two jobs.

Performance reviews fail when we ask a single meeting to simultaneously be:

1. Coaching

2. Recognition

3. Salary negotiation

4. Promotion decision

5. Conflict resolution

6. Documentation

7. Goal setting

That’s too much pressure for one conversation, and everyone shows up armored.

Instead, high-functioning organizations separate performance management into two clear “tracks”:

Track 1: The Coaching System (ongoing, low-stakes, forward-looking)

• Purpose: growth, clarity, momentum

• Cadence: weekly/biweekly/monthly

• Inputs: goals, examples, quick feedback, barriers

• Output: next steps, support, alignment

This is where employees should hear the truth early so there’s no surprises later.

Track 2: The Decision System (periodic, documented, calibrated)

• Purpose: pay, promotion, record, fairness across teams

• Cadence: semiannual or annual

• Inputs: achievement evidence, impact narratives, peer feedback, manager assessment

• Output: rating (or equivalent), compensation outcomes, formal development plan

This is where calibration belongs – because fairness across the organization is a design requirement, not an optional feature.

So instead of abolishing reviews, most companies are building a hybrid:

1. Continuous check-ins for coaching and progress

2. Periodic reviews for decisions and documentation

How to design a simple performance review process (8 steps)

This human-centered performance review process combines both tracks into 8 steps, designed to be simple and manageable:  

1) Define the process in one page

Create a single, one-page description of your process that every manager can understand and follow. You should include:

• Purpose: grow people + make fair pay/promo decisions

• Cadence: monthly/weekly check-ins, 2 formal checkpoints/year (mid-year + year-end)

• Inputs: goals, recognition moments, outcomes evidence, skills growth

• Outputs: development plan + compensation/promotion recommendation

This becomes your consistency anchor.

2) Make company goals visible and usable

People can’t set strong goals if they can’t see what the organization is trying to achieve.

Build a simple goals stack (3 layers):

1. Company Objectives (top 3–5)

2. Team Objectives (2–4 per team that clearly map to company objectives)

3. Individual Goals (3–5 per person mapped to team objectives)

Put this in a shared document in your SharePoint/Notion/Confluence/Google Site, so it’s visible and accessible.  

3) Make recognition a weekly habit

Because recognition works. Especially when it’s frequent, specific, and tied to company values and goals.

Minimum standard: Every manager gives 2 pieces of specific recognition per week (written is best as it creates a record).

Operationalize it:

• Add a standing agenda item in team meetings: “Wins + Thanks (5 minutes)”

• Create one shared channel/thread: #wins, #shoutout

• Add a tiny field to monthly check-ins: “Recognition received/given” (so it becomes part of the performance story, not separate.)

4) Standardize the process

Consistency comes from shared templates, not more than policy documents.

Build a quick template that everyone can use. This is what you send your managers to follow, so the process stays consistent across all teams. This template should define:

• Weekly/monthly check-ins: Recognition, progress on goals, well-being pulse check, lightweight feedback, blockers preventing goal completion.

• Mid-year growth review: Top outcomes/challenges, strengths, growth areas, career/development goals, compensation review & next steps to increase salary or promotion (if applicable).  

• Year-end review: Top outcomes/challenges, behaviors/values demonstrated, reflection on the role (did this job get bigger?), career progression readiness, and compensation/promotion decision.

• Calibration (for fairness): One 60–90 minute session per cycle where leaders compare outcomes and level expectations across teams.

5) Tie performance to career goals, raises, and promotions

This is where most systems break: employees don’t know what “great” means or how it translates to advancement.

Create a simple progression rubric for each role family/level and add career alignment into every review:

• Employee states: “My next step is ____ (promotion, lateral move, deeper expertise)”

• Manager states: “To get there, you need evidence of ____ by ____”

• Agree on one stretch opportunity in the next 3–6 months to build that evidence

Promotions and raises should be tied to:

• Sustained outcomes

• Scope/impact at next level

• Demonstrated competencies

• Avoid vague “time in seat” logic

6) Use existing tools to avoid tech fatigue

Another roadblock to performance reviews is having to onboard everyone onto a new tech tool. Try and utilize what your organization is already paying for, and the tools your people are familiar with.  

7) Use AI to cut admin work (with guardrails)

AI should reduce writing burden, not become the judge.

Best AI uses (low risk, high value):

• Summarize monthly check-in notes into a mid-year/year-end draft

• Turn bullet notes into clear review language

• Suggest SMART goal rewrites

• Extract themes from peer feedback (without inventing facts)

Guardrails (non-negotiable):

• AI can only work from approved inputs (notes, goals, recognition records)

• No sensitive personal data pasted into unapproved tools

• Human final review required: “AI-drafted, manager-verified”

• Keep evidence visible (link outcomes to examples)

8) Measure whether it’s working (keep it honest and lightweight)

Pick a few indicators so the system improves over time:

• % of employees with goals aligned to company objectives

• % of monthly check-ins completed

• Recognition frequency (simple count)

• Employee perception (pulse questions): “I know what great performance looks like," “I get useful feedback regularly," “I see a path to growth/promotion”

• Equity checks: rating/raise distributions by team/role/tenure
  

Performance reviews should be a rhythm (not a meeting)

Performance reviews don’t have to feel like an annual surprise exam, or a meeting where everyone already knows the outcome but still has to sit through the script.

The best systems do something beautifully simple: they separate growth from judgment. They make coaching regular and low-stakes, and they make decisions fair, documented, and consistent.  

If you take just one thing from this: your performance review isn’t a meeting. It’s a rhythm. A rhythm of clarity, feedback, recognition, and opportunity.

And when performance management is designed well, it doesn’t just measure work – it gives people a reason to keep bringing their best.