Performance Review Season Is Here. And Nobody Trusts the Process.
Performance reviews are supposed to make work fairer. They should help people understand how they are doing, recognize their contributions, identify areas for development, and make better decisions about promotions and pay.
So why do so many people approach them with a mixture of dread, cynicism, and resignation?
A client of mine, whom I'll call Quinn, works at a large global tech company. A few weeks ago, just as performance review season was getting underway, she told me how much she dreaded calibration sessions.
"There's no point," she said. "It's theater. The loudest and most powerful people in the room win."
Quinn always comes prepared with data. She tracks her achievements, documents her impact, and builds a case for her performance. But she has also learned that evidence doesn't necessarily settle an argument. As she put it, if you torture data long enough, it will confess to anything.
I recognized the frustration immediately. Not just from coaching conversations, but from my own years inside corporate life.
When the process becomes more important than the performance
I spent 11 years at Google, and during that time, I saw the performance review process change more than once.
When I joined, we had quarterly reviews and a point system. Reviews later moved to every six months and eventually to an annual cycle. Each new version was intended to improve on the previous one. Each also introduced a fresh set of frustrations.
The mechanics changed. The underlying challenge remained: how do you make fair judgments about people's performance when the process itself is shaped by human bias, organizational politics, and competing interests?
Some of the explanations I heard from managers were particularly revealing:
"You got meets expectations because that's what everyone gets in their first review (in the company ever or after maternity leave, for example)."
"You got this rating because I had to give that other person a higher one."
"You did a great job, but we need to show that you're still growing, so I'm not giving you the top rating yet."
"Your results were excellent, but you need to be more visible to senior leadership."
"I know you took on more responsibility than anyone else on the team, but I can't justify a higher rating because your title hasn't changed."
Think about what those statements communicate. Your rating might have less to do with your contribution than with your tenure, your circumstances, or how your manager needs to position someone else.
If the outcome is effectively decided before anyone examines your work, why should you trust the process? If ratings are adjusted to fit a predetermined distribution, what does the final score actually tell you?
And if employees believe the decision has already been made, what incentive do they have to engage meaningfully with the feedback that follows?
The problem isn't that performance reviews involve judgment. They inevitably do. The problem is when organizations present subjective decisions as if they were objective measurements, leaving employees to figure out which rules actually determine the outcome.
Why Are Performance Reviews So Stressful?
Performance reviews are stressful because they squeeze pay, promotion, and reputation into a few weeks, through a process most people don't fully trust. Gallup found that only 14% of employees strongly agree their reviews inspire them to improve, which says a lot about how most people experience them.
There is also a reason it feels so personal. David Rock of the NeuroLeadership Institute describes five social needs in his SCARF model: status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness. When any of them feels threatened, the brain reacts in much the same way it reacts to physical danger.
A review touches all five at once. Someone is rating you, often against your peers. You don't know what the outcome will be, and the final decision sits with other people. Feedback from colleagues you like can sting. And you may quietly suspect that others are being judged by a different standard.
Managers feel it too. Rock has said it is close to impossible to be someone's coach and their
judge at the same time, and that is exactly what most managers are asked to do in this season, often for a whole team at once.
Quinn's frustration has some research behind it, too. Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall, writing in Harvard Business Review, describe studies showing that a rating often says more about the tendencies of the person giving it than about the performance of the person receiving it. When those ratings are then pushed onto a curve and argued over in a calibration room, it is easy to understand why so many people feel the outcome is partly out of their hands.
The stories I hear from clients
I've heard variations of these experiences from professionals across companies, industries, and countries.
One person spends an entire weekend writing a detailed self-assessment, only to discover that their manager barely has time to read it.
Another meticulously documents achievements against last year's objectives, then finds that the review template has changed and the work no longer fits the categories.
Others have managers responsible for so many people that reviews are written late at night, squeezed between meetings and competing deadlines. The feedback may be thoughtful, but it may also be rushed, generic, or disconnected from what happened during the year.
And in organizations that use forced distributions, employees may find themselves competing for a limited number of top ratings, even when the team has delivered exceptional results across the board.
These are different problems, but they share a common thread: the process designed to evaluate performance can end up obscuring the performance itself.
When that happens, employees stop asking, "How can I do better work?" and start asking, "How do I navigate this process?" or "How do I play this game?"
They learn which achievements are visible, which stakeholders have influence, which phrases resonate with leadership, and how to present their work in ways that fit the system.
Some of that is sensible career management. Communicating your accomplishments is a legitimate professional skill. But there is a difference between communicating your impact and having to package it strategically because you don't trust the people evaluating it.
The real cost is not just a disappointing rating
When clients tell me these stories, what I hear most often is exhaustion.
They have worked hard all year. They have managed difficult stakeholders, delivered results, supported colleagues, and dealt with the inevitable setbacks. Now they are being asked to demonstrate their value through a process they may not believe in.
Their responses vary.
Some disengage. They decide that the outcome is out of their hands and stop trying to influence it.
Others go in the opposite direction. They spend hours polishing their self-assessments, collecting evidence, and rehearsing arguments. They hope that if they make their case compelling enough, they can protect themselves from the weaknesses of the system.
Neither response is particularly satisfying.
Disengagement can mean that important contributions go unrecognized. Over-investing in the process can consume time and energy that would be better spent on the work itself.
There is also a longer-term risk. When employees repeatedly see little connection between performance and recognition, they may begin to question whether effort is worth the investment. Trust erodes, motivation suffers, and talented people may eventually decide to take their skills elsewhere.
Of course, not every disappointing rating is evidence of a broken system. Sometimes performance falls short of expectations. Sometimes managers have legitimate reasons for making difficult distinctions between employees. And sometimes feedback is uncomfortable precisely because it is necessary.
A fair process doesn't guarantee that everyone gets the rating they want. It gives people a reasonable basis for understanding the decision, challenging it when appropriate, and learning from it.
When Should You Start Preparing for Your Performance Review?
Start now, and ideally well before the self-assessment form opens. By the time the form arrives, most of the opinions that shape your rating have already formed.
Gallup's research on performance reviews found that employees who get weekly feedback from their manager, compared with annual feedback, are 5.2 times more likely to strongly agree that the feedback they receive is meaningful. The review is the end of a year of conversations. If those conversations haven't happened, the review has to carry all of the weight on its own.
A client of mine, a senior manager at a global tech company, came to me after a review that left her deflated. Her biggest piece of work that year was a system migration she led in the first quarter. It wasn't mentioned once in her review. By November, her manager remembered the last three months, and the migration had become old news.
The following year she did two things differently. She kept a short running document of her results, updated every couple of weeks, and in September she asked her manager for thirty minutes to walk through it. Her manager later told her he had used several of those points, almost word for word, in calibration.
Ask your manager what a strong year looks like now. Something like: "Looking at my year so far, what would make you describe it as strong? Is there anything you'd want to see more of before reviews?" You still have time to act on the answer.
Find out how the process works. When are self-assessments due, when does calibration happen, and who is in the room? Many people never ask, and it removes a lot of the uncertainty.
Raise concerns before the rating, while they can still change something. A conversation in October about a project that went sideways is a much easier conversation than a surprise in December.
How Do You Make Sure Your Work Is Well Represented in Your Review?
Write down your impact as you go, describe outcomes rather than tasks, and make sure the people in the calibration room know what you did.
Your manager is usually the one representing you in calibration, often in a few minutes, alongside a dozen other people. They can only argue for what they know and remember.
Recency bias means the last few months tend to count for more than the first few, so a big win in February can quietly disappear.
Keep a running record. A simple document where you note wins, feedback, and numbers each week or month. Ten minutes on a Friday saves days of trying to reconstruct the year in November.
Write about impact. "Ran the quarterly business reviews" describes a task. "Ran the quarterly business reviews for our three largest clients, which led to a renewal worth X" describes a result. Where you can, connect your work to the goals your manager and their manager care about.
Include the work that doesn't show up in metrics. Mentoring, fixing a broken process, holding a team together through a reorg. If you don't name it, nobody else will.
Give your manager the short version. A few bullet points they can repeat in calibration are more useful to them than three pages. Make it easy for them to advocate for you.
Be honest about what didn't work. A self-assessment with no misses reads as unaware. One or two things you learned, and what you changed as a result, adds credibility to everything else.
Who Should You Ask for Feedback Before Your Performance Review?
Ask a mix of people who saw your work up close and people whose opinion carries weight with your manager, and ask them early.
Many people default to asking their friends at work. That feels safer, but it often produces feedback that is warm and vague, and it may not reach the people making decisions. A more useful list usually includes:
Your closest collaborators: the people who saw the detail of your work week to week
Cross-functional partners: someone in another team who depended on you, since they see things your own team doesn't
Someone more senior than your manager: if you worked with them on something visible, their view tends to travel
People you manage or mentor: if you lead others, their perspective shows how you lead
One person you had friction with: this is the hardest one, and often the most credible, because it shows you can take feedback that isn't comfortable
How to Ask for Feedback That Is Actually Useful
Ask early. Your colleagues are writing feedback for many people at the same time. A request in early October gets more thought than one the night before the deadline.
Make it specific. "Any feedback for me?" usually gets "you're great to work with." Try: "On the launch project, what's one thing I did that helped, and one thing I could have done differently?"
Remind them what you worked on together. A short note with two or three projects saves them time and gets you more concrete examples.
Ask for some of it in person. People often say more in a conversation than they will put in writing in a formal tool.
Should You Use AI to Write Your Self-Assessment?
Write it yourself. AI can help you organize your notes or check your grammar, but the words should be yours.
AI-written self-assessments and peer reviews are easy to spot. They sound polished and say very little. Every project was "impactful," every colleague "a true collaborator." Managers notice, and it makes everything in the document feel less believable, including the parts that are true.
The same goes for feedback you write about colleagues and your reports if you are a manager yourself. If someone asked for your view, they want your view, with a real example in your own words. A short, specific paragraph is worth more than a long generic one.
How Can Managers Run Fair and Useful Performance Reviews?
Have the hard conversations before review season, prepare evidence for every person on your team, and be ready to defend your assessments with clear reasoning.
Managers are often under considerable pressure during review season. They write their own self-assessments, give feedback to peers, write reviews for every direct report, and defend their assessments in calibration sessions. They may also have to navigate competing priorities, limited budgets for pay increases, and organizational expectations about how ratings should be distributed.
None of that removes their responsibility to their people.
One manager I coached had a team member who had delivered an exceptional year. When calibration approached, he knew the person deserved a strong rating, but he had not done enough to build a compelling case for it. His evidence was scattered across emails, project updates, and his own recollections. He knew the person was good, but he struggled to articulate the full extent of their impact in the room.
Another manager had a different problem: she had the evidence, but when a senior leader challenged her assessment, she backed down without asking what evidence supported the alternative view.
Both situations highlighted the same issue. A manager's job is not simply to assess performance. It is to make a well-founded assessment, explain the reasoning, and challenge decisions that are inconsistent with the evidence.
Calibration exists partly to reduce individual bias and improve consistency across teams.
That is valuable. But calibration should be a discussion about evidence and standards, not a negotiation in which managers compete for ratings or accept decisions they cannot justify.
Here are six ways to approach the process more effectively.
1. Make sure nothing in the review is a surprise.
If someone is going to hear difficult feedback in December, they should have heard a version of it in September. Equally, if someone is exceeding expectations, make sure they know that, too. Regular feedback gives people the opportunity to adjust, improve, and build on their strengths before a formal assessment.
2. Prepare to defend your assessment, not just present it.
For each person, gather two or three concrete examples of their impact, the complexity of their work, and how they performed against expectations for their level. Anticipate the questions or objections that might come up in calibration. What makes this person's contribution stand out? What evidence supports the rating? How does their performance compare with the relevant criteria?
Don't rely on being able to recall someone's achievements in the room. If you cannot explain your assessment clearly and substantiate it with evidence, you haven't finished preparing.
3. Challenge decisions you cannot reconcile with the evidence.
Calibration is not a reason to abandon your professional judgment. If someone challenges your proposed rating, ask what criteria or evidence support the alternative. Be willing to revise your assessment when presented with a valid argument, but don't concede simply because someone more senior disagrees.
Your responsibility is to advocate for a fair assessment, not to win an argument at all costs. That requires both conviction and intellectual honesty.
4. Take responsibility for the message you deliver.
If a rating changes during calibration, understand why before communicating it to your report. Can you explain the decision in terms of the performance criteria? Was there evidence you overlooked? Was a consistent standard applied across comparable employees? Or was the decision driven by a constraint unrelated to individual performance?
Don't hide behind "the committee decided" or "that's how the process works." If you disagree with the outcome, explain your reasoning and what you challenged. If you agree with it, be prepared to explain why. And if you cannot reconcile the decision with the evidence, seek clarification rather than presenting an answer you don't believe.
5. Leave room for the person to respond.
A performance review should not be a monologue. Ask how the employee sees their year, where they agree or disagree with your assessment, and what context you might be missing.
Listen without immediately defending your position. You may not agree on everything, but the conversation should leave them understanding the reasoning behind the assessment and feeling that their perspective was heard.
6. Spend more time on the future than on the past.
The rating matters, particularly when it affects pay, promotion, or career progression. Don't pretend otherwise. But once the assessment has been discussed, focus on what comes next. What skills should the person develop? What opportunities would stretch them? What support do they need from you? What specific outcomes would demonstrate readiness for the next level?
A useful review should give someone more than a verdict on the year they've just completed. It should help them understand how to move forward.
The organization has a responsibility, too.
Managers cannot deliver thoughtful, evidence-based reviews if they are given too many people to assess, too little time to prepare, and incentives that prioritize completing the process over getting the decisions right. If calibration becomes a rushed exercise in fitting people into rating distributions, even capable managers will struggle to do their jobs well.
Organizations need to give managers the time, clear criteria, and training to assess performance properly. They also need to examine what calibration is actually optimizing for: consistency and fairness, or simply a predetermined distribution of ratings.
Managers must be prepared to defend their assessments. But organizations must make it possible for them to do so. More on this in a separate article.
Frequently Asked Questions About Year-End Performance Reviews
How long should a self-assessment be? Long enough to cover your three to five most important results with evidence, and short enough for your manager to read in a few minutes. If your company gives a word limit, use it as a ceiling.
How many people should I ask for peer feedback? Three to five is usually enough, chosen for range rather than friendship: close collaborators, a cross-functional partner, and ideally someone more senior.
What should I do if I disagree with my rating? Give yourself a day before responding. Then ask your manager for specific examples and what would have led to a different outcome, and put your perspective in writing calmly and factually if your company allows it.
What is calibration? Calibration is the meeting where managers compare ratings across a team or department so that standards are applied consistently. Your manager usually represents you there.
When should managers start preparing for reviews? At least a month before the deadline, and ideally with regular check-ins throughout the year so the review confirms what has already been discussed.
What if I'm a manager and I think the review process isn't fair? Start with what you can influence. Raise specific concerns with evidence, such as inconsistent standards across teams or ratings linked to tenure, and take them to your own manager, HR, or whoever runs calibration. Ask what criteria are being applied. With your team, be honest about the constraints without undermining the process or making promises you can't keep. If you see ratings tied to maternity or parental leave, or to any other protected characteristic, take it to HR straight away, since in many countries, that can be unlawful discrimination.
Over to You
Whether you're writing your own review this month, writing reviews for your team, or both, it might help to pause and think about a few things. What would you want your manager to say about you in the calibration room? Who has seen your best work this year, and do they know you'd value their feedback? Is there a conversation you've been putting off that would be easier to have now than in December?
Hi! I'm Merve. 👋 I help leaders build high performing teams, amplify their business impact, and advance their careers. Here are five ways you can connect with me:
Book a 1:1 Coaching Session: Tailored to your individual goals, including preparing for reviews, promotion conversations, and feedback. In-depth guidance, focused strategy, and results-oriented accountability for professional and personal challenges.
Join Signature Leadership Programs: For corporate leaders and business owners at all stages, blending 1:1 coaching with group workshops and training to grow your career, earnings, and business success.
Subscribe to My FREE Monthly Newsletter: The latest in leadership and business, with insights and musings delivered to your inbox.
Access FREE Worksheets for Leaders: Downloadable worksheets and workbooks for self-awareness, self-reflection, and positive change in leadership and team dynamics.
Follow me on LinkedIn: Daily updates, thought-provoking articles, and a community of professionals committed to growth and leadership excellence.
