It is the time of year when millions of workers and managers globally are slogging through one of the arguably more tedious rituals of professional life: the annual performance review.
Business as usual is suspended as bosses compile lengthy reports, have difficult conversations and make defining judgments, often with pay and promotion at stake.
It is a system many now view as flawed and outdated but one that has been slow to evolve.
“There is little doubt that performance reviews need to change,” says Petra Wilton, policy director at the Chartered Management Institute. “The once-a-year, form-filling appraisal is increasingly out of step with how fast-moving hybrid teams actually operate.”
RM Block
Wilton says some organisations are moving towards a system with shorter, more regular “check-ins” and handling development separately to pay. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is also offering new opportunities to speed up and improve the review process.
“People want feedback they can use while projects are live and priorities are shifting, not a retrospective verdict months after the moment has passed,” she adds.
Deloitte is among the organisations to have tried another way. A decade ago, the consultancy introduced a system of more regular conversations, dispensing with annual appraisals that required managers to assess and rank team members. The more frequent check-ins provided feedback, guidance and “snapshots” of progress, giving staff more chance to reflect and improve.
Ashley Goodall, who led the overhaul while a director at Deloitte, estimates the change saved staff two million hours annually spent devising, writing and calibrating reviews, with little to show for it each year.
“When you actually make performance about the performer, not about the judge ... that performance actually increases,” says Goodall. “What do you need to do to help people do their best jobs? A conversation with the team leader, once a week, on an agenda defined by the team member. That’s the trick.”
Now a consultant, Goodall went on to implement similar performance revamps at software firm, Cisco and other companies. Deloitte says it has “refined and evolved its approach to performance management” while continuing “to find value in frequent check-ins”.
When you actually make performance about the performer, not about the judge ... that performance actually increases
— Ashley Goodall, formerly Deloitte
But the approach of regular, employee-led check-ins has largely not caught on.
A Gallup poll found 56 per cent of employees said systems for improving performance at their work meant a formal review with managers once a year or less. Just 2 per cent of chief human resources officers said their own performance systems worked, and only 14 per cent of employees strongly agreed they inspired them to improve.
Like Deloitte, other organisations adopting different approaches did so in the mid-2010s – a brief period when developing more continuous methods of performance management was in vogue. Goodall believes much of the work was cut short when companies began dealing with the more urgent demands of the Covid pandemic.
Lucy Adams, former HR director at the BBC and founder of Disruptive HR, says many organisations persist in offering formal feedback only once a year out of habit.
Employers “don’t trust managers to have conversations” about where staff have gone wrong or how they can improve, so “they say, at least if they’re having one conversation a year, it’s better than nothing”, she says.
Bonuses and promotions also often rest on annual scores or judgments, so companies feel locked into making them.
But Adams insists the once-a-year appraisal is “worse than nothing because you’ve got clumsy feedback delivered poorly, with a rating at the end of it”. Addressing poor performance should mean constructive criticism and guidance as issues arise, she adds.
Just 2 per cent of chief human resources officers said their own performance systems worked, and only 14 per cent of employees strongly agreed they inspired them to improve."
— Gallup poll
Software company Adobe switched annual check-ins in favour of continuous assessment in 2012. Now, its system prioritises open conversation, ongoing development and support through three structured conversations a year. The first sets expectations, the second discusses progress against goals, and the third reflects on impact.
Mark Lipscomb, Adobe’s senior vice-president for employee experience, says the shift makes “performance an ongoing, two-way dialogue rather than a once-a-year evaluation”, and helps “leaders to coach more effectively and employees to take greater ownership of their growth”.
The company is also running pilots using AI to improve the clarity of written reviews and develop more constructive feedback. It encourages employees to use the technology to sharpen their goals. “We see AI as a tool to enhance the quality of performance conversations, not replace the human experience at the centre of them,” Lipscomb says.
AI’s role in performance assessments is a hotly disputed area of HR. JP Morgan last year gave employees the option to use its in-house AI to write end-of-year performance reviews based on prompts, while Boston Consulting Group has said using AI to draft reviews cuts employees’ writing time by 40 per cent.
In forums online, managers discuss using off-the-shelf large language models to write the many performance documents they are required to put together more quickly and easily.
But others are scathing about this kind of AI use. “I don’t want feedback from a robot,” says Goodall.
Flora Bondici, chief people officer at crypto company, Chorus One, says AI tools mean reviews are “nice and polished”, but at a price. “Immediately we started to hear feedback about this, that it doesn’t feel so authentic,” she says. “I wrote some pure feedback without AI, and that was just so appreciated because they felt it was written by a human.”
How to take pain out of performance management
Ritu Mohanka, CEO, VONQ: “Consistency of feedback, not intensity. Most managers wait too long, then overload a review with months of pent-up input. The best ones run short, regular check-ins tied to actual work, not generic development chats. And if you’re using AI, it should be to surface patterns, not make decisions.”
Flora Bondici, chief people officer, Chorus One: “Remember you are giving feedback because you care about your team. Not just their performance, but how they experience their work. Start by asking what gives them energy, what they enjoy, and what they’d like to do more of. That’s how feedback becomes a conversation people look forward to, rather than one they fear.”
David Liddle, president, People and Culture Association: “Really listen. This should be about seeking to understand, being curious, asking open questions and answering theirs. Managers need to ask, ‘How am I performing as your manager and what can I do to improve?’”
John Whelan, director, Corporate Research Forum: “Ambitious employees will want to know three things: ‘How am I doing? Where and how can I improve? What do I need to do to progress?’ By asking colleagues to reflect on performance and what help they need, [managers] can align perspectives and ensure they feel supported.” – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2026
