Short answer
Reinventing performance reviews means redesigning the operating model around the decisions it must support. Keep an annual review where a formal summary, employee response, calibration, pay or progression decision requires it. Move current feedback, support, recognition, development and project learning to suitable moments, then define ownership, records, access and follow-through for every part.
Begin with the jobs the current review performs
Do not start by choosing a new cadence or tool. Map what the present review actually does, including work that happens informally around it.
The CIPD performance management factsheet treats performance management as a set of connected practices, including objectives, ratings, reviews, feedback, learning and development, and performance-related pay. Its performance review factsheet notes that structured reviews remain part of the cycle even as organisations use more regular conversations.
Use one row for each function:
| Function | Decision or outcome | Evidence | Suitable moment | Required record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expectations | What work and behaviour are expected now? | Role requirements, priorities, dependencies | Start of period and material change | Current expectation and effective date |
| Work support | What blocker, resource, or clarification needs action? | Recent work example and employee context | Regular check-in | Action, owner, return date |
| Project learning | What should change in the way work is done? | Delivery evidence and participant accounts | Milestone or retrospective | Process lesson and test |
| Recognition | Which contribution should be acknowledged? | Specific recent example | Close to the contribution | Brief record if later use is declared |
| Development | Which capability or experience should be built? | Role need, employee interest, opportunity | Dedicated development discussion | Opportunity, support, sponsor, review date |
| Formal evaluation | How did work compare with communicated expectations? | Evidence across the defined period | Governed review window | Assessment, employee response, approvals |
| Employment decision | Who recommends, decides, reviews, or appeals? | Approved criteria and relevant records | Separate decision process | Rationale and required documentation |
This inventory prevents a new check-in from inheriting every problem of the old form.
Preserve valid roles for a formal review
An annual or other periodic review can remain useful when it provides:
- a documented summary across a defined period;
- assessment against expectations communicated in advance;
- an employee opportunity to respond or record disagreement;
- calibration across comparable cases;
- an approved input to pay, progression, probation, capability, or another formal decision;
- a record required by policy, agreement, contract, regulation, or local practice.
Regular feedback should make that review less dependent on memory. It should not bypass the controls attached to a formal decision.
Acas performance management guidance recommends regular feedback and check-ins alongside more formal reviews, fair objectives, and written records shared with the employee. For US employers, the EEOC evaluation guidance recommends communicating standards, applying them consistently, using relevant facts, and informing employees when standards change. These sources provide design principles, not a substitute for the organisation's own US or UK legal and employee-relations review.
Write the operating model before the form
Complete this canvas for every component that survives the redesign:
| Operating-model field | Question to answer |
|---|---|
| Purpose | What decision, support, or learning job does this component perform? |
| Population | Who participates, and which role or worker groups need a different route? |
| Trigger and cadence | Is it calendar-based, event-triggered, or both? |
| Evidence | What may be considered, and what is out of scope? |
| Employee voice | How can the employee prepare, add context, correct the record, or disagree? |
| Decision rights | Who recommends, decides, reviews, and handles an appeal or escalation? |
| Record | What is stored, where, for what declared purpose, and for how long? |
| Access | Who can see source material, notes, grouped information, and the final decision? |
| Follow-through | Which action needs an owner, date, and return point? |
| Exceptions | How are leave, transfers, manager absence, new starters, accommodations, and disputes handled? |
| Quality check | What makes the component useful beyond being complete? |
| Local review | Which policy, agreement, works council, employee-relations, legal, or data requirement applies? |
A software workflow should implement this model. It should not decide it by default.
Separate decision rights from conversation roles
A participant can provide evidence without owning the decision. Make the distinction visible.
| Role | May contribute | May prepare or recommend | May decide | Must be able to review |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employee | Work examples, context, development interests, disagreement | Self-reflection and proposed action | Agreed work actions within role | Their own relevant record and correction route |
| Manager | Expectations, observed examples, support decisions | Assessment or recommendation within policy | Only decisions assigned to the role | Employee response and relevant evidence |
| HR or people team | Process evidence, policy context, consistency checks | Guidance, calibration support, exception handling | Only decisions assigned by policy | Process completion, access, exceptions, and fairness checks |
| Reviewer or decision panel | Approved evidence and recommendations | Calibration or review | Named formal decisions | Decision rationale and required records |
| Peer or stakeholder | Directly observed work within a declared purpose | Feedback, when invited | No automatic authority over the outcome | How their input will be used and protected |
Do not present several opinions as objective truth because they were averaged. Define what each contributor could observe and retain material disagreement.
Design evidence that can be examined
Use evidence that is relevant to the stated expectation and period. A useful record distinguishes:
- the observed event or work product;
- the expectation in effect at the time;
- the manager's interpretation;
- the employee's context or correction;
- known dependencies and changed requirements;
- the action or decision and its owner.
Avoid importing engagement sentiment, conversation themes, attendance, or system activity into an individual performance conclusion without a declared and justified purpose. A group pattern does not establish an individual's capability or intent.
The OPM performance management cycle separates planning, monitoring, developing, rating, and rewarding in the US federal context. Use that separation as a diagnostic prompt: can your operating model support ongoing work and periodic decisions without blending every record into one score?
Build the transition as a controlled pilot
Use a complete end-to-end path, not a demonstration of the new conversation screen.
- Inventory current purposes, policies, records, decision rights, integrations, and local variations.
- Identify what must be preserved, retired, moved, or tested.
- Select representative roles, shifts, countries, manager spans, and accessibility needs.
- Prepare fictional cases for changed goals, disputed evidence, leave, manager transfer, overdue action, and a formal decision.
- Train participants on purpose, evidence, bias, feedback, correction, and escalation.
- Run the new process through a full work and decision cycle while preserving required controls.
- Reconcile records and ownership rather than maintaining two unofficial sources of truth.
- Review effort, missing evidence, duplicated work, employee clarity, and unintended use before expansion.
Do not claim a performance gain from a completed pilot. Completion shows that a process step occurred. It does not show that evidence was fair, support arrived, or performance changed because of the redesign.
A fictional operating-model transition
Ridgeway Systems is a fictional employer with software and field-service teams in the US and UK. Its annual form records a rating, a pay recommendation, development goals, and a general comment. Managers also hold one-to-ones, but those meetings have no consistent purpose or action follow-up.
The redesign keeps the annual review as the documented assessment, employee-response point, calibration input, and pay recommendation under existing controls. It moves other work:
- Current priorities and blockers go into role-appropriate check-ins.
- Project feedback is discussed at milestones while examples can still be examined.
- Recognition occurs close to a contribution.
- Development receives its own forward-looking discussion and opportunity owner.
- Goal changes are dated and shared rather than edited over the prior expectation.
The pilot includes one software team and two field-service regions. Field employees need a mobile route and protected work time. One manager changes role halfway through the pilot, so the process tests reassignment and employee review of transferred records. A disputed project example stays marked as disputed while the review owner checks the source.
At the annual decision point, HR checks whether the employee could see the relevant evidence, expectations were current, manager actions were followed through, and the pay recommendation used the approved process. It also records duplicated entry and time burden. The company can then revise individual components without declaring the entire model a success or failure from one outcome.
Use separate measures for process, quality, and effect
| Dimension | Example measure | What it does not prove |
|---|---|---|
| Process | Eligible reviews completed by the deadline | That the review was useful or fair |
| Evidence quality | Sample with specific examples and current expectations | That the evaluation is correct in every case |
| Employee clarity | Participants can explain purpose and decision use | That they agree with the result |
| Follow-through | Actions reviewed by the agreed date | That the action caused a performance change |
| Operating effort | Tested time and overdue work by role | That lower time means better management |
| Decision control | Required review and correction routes used | That no bias or legal risk remains |
Use the performance review completion-rate guide for the denominator and workflow diagnosis. Use the performance review alternatives guide when deciding which functions should live in a formal review, check-in, project feedback, development, recognition, or multi-source process.
Where a prepared conversation fits
If one part of the new model needs employee context before a manager discussion, explore Lontra's employee conversations and manager briefs. The manager receives a brief rather than the raw employee conversation, and people remain responsible for reviewing the context and deciding what happens next.
Lontra is not a complete performance-management system. It does not own goals, ratings, calibration, pay, promotion, capability procedures, continuous employee monitoring, or automated employment decisions. Evaluate it as one possible preparation step within the operating model.
Frequently asked questions
Should a company abolish annual performance reviews?
Not as a default. An annual review can still provide a documented summary, employee response, calibration or formal decision point. Redesign the whole operating model and move only the work that belongs elsewhere.
What should a performance review redesign include?
Define each purpose, evidence source, participant, decision owner, employee response route, record, access rule, follow-up and escalation path. Then test the complete journey with realistic cases before wider rollout.
How should HR pilot a new review process?
Choose representative roles and managers, preserve required formal controls, run through one complete decision and follow-up cycle, and compare operating effort, evidence quality, employee clarity, exceptions and overdue actions.
