HR AI Skill

Performance Reviews

Manage performance review cycles including mid-year and annual reviews, self-assessments, manager reviews, 360-degree feedback collection, calibration sessions, and review outcome documentation. Use when kicking off a review cycle, collecting feedback, runn...

Performance Reviews

Run structured, fair, and actionable performance review cycles.

Workflow

  1. Kick off the review cycle: announce timeline, send guides to employees and managers, configure system.
  2. Self-assessment phase (Week 1–2): Employees complete self-review against goals set at last cycle, highlight achievements, document challenges.
  3. Manager review phase (Week 3–4): Managers rate direct reports, write narrative feedback, compare against goals and competency framework.
  4. 360-degree feedback collection (Week 3–4, parallel): Collect anonymous feedback from peers, cross-functional partners, and direct reports (for managers).
  5. Preliminary 1:1 reviews (Week 5): Manager and employee discuss ratings and feedback in a structured conversation.
  6. Calibration sessions (Week 6): Cross-manager meetings to align ratings, reduce bias, ensure distribution fairness.
  7. Final review conversations (Week 7): Post-calibration 1:1 with final ratings, development plans, and compensation implications.
  8. Documentation and follow-up (Week 8): Store completed reviews, generate analytics, set new goals for next cycle.

Rating Scale

Use a 5-point scale with clear behavioral anchors — avoid forced distribution unless legally required.

| Rating | Label | Behavior | Approx. % | |--------|-------|----------|-----------| | 5 | Exceptional | Consistently exceeds all expectations; role model for peers; impact beyond scope | ~10% | | 4 | Exceeds Expectations | Regularly goes beyond role requirements; high-quality output with minimal guidance | ~20% | | 3 | Meets Expectations | Solidly performs all core responsibilities; reliable contributor | ~45% | | 2 | Needs Improvement | Gaps in key areas; requires additional support or coaching | ~15% | | 1 | Unsatisfactory | Fails to meet core requirements; formal improvement plan needed | ~5–10% |

Note: Percentages are guidelines, not quotas. Do not force a bell curve — calibrate to actual performance.

Review Components

Component 1: Goal Achievement

Rate against goals set at the start of the review period:

Goal: [Specific, measurable goal from last cycle]
Status: □ Exceeded □ Achieved □ Partially Achieved □ Not Achieved
Evidence: [Specific examples, metrics, project outcomes]
Manager notes: [Context, challenges, external factors]

Component 2: Competency Assessment

Rate core competencies. Customize per role level:

| Competency | Individual Contributor | Manager | Director+ | |------------|----------------------|---------|-----------| | Technical/Functional Excellence | Core rating | Rated + strategic impact | Strategic vision | | Communication | Clear, effective | Influential, persuasive | Executive presence | | Collaboration | Team player | Cross-functional leader | Org-wide alignment | | Initiative & Ownership | Self-directed | Drives team outcomes | Drives org outcomes | | Growth & Learning | Continuously improves | Develops others | Builds talent pipeline |

Component 3: Narrative Feedback

Structure manager narrative using SBI model:

Situation: "During the Q3 product launch..."
Behavior: "...you re-prioritized the backlog without consulting the team..."
Impact: "...which caused 2 engineers to work weekends and missed the internal QA deadline."

Follow with:
- What worked well (specific strengths observed)
- Areas for growth (specific, actionable)
- Overall impression

Component 4: 360-Degree Feedback

Collect from 4–8 raters per employee:

Rater types:
  - Peer (same team): 2–3 raters
  - Cross-functional partner: 1–2 raters
  - Direct report (if manager): 2–3 raters
  - Manager: 1 rater (weighted higher)

Questions per rater:
  1. Rate overall effectiveness (1–5)
  2. Top strength observed: [free text]
  3. One area for improvement: [free text]
  4. Would you willingly work with this person again? Yes/No

Aggregation:
  → Average rating across all raters (manager rating weighted 2×)
  → Surface common themes in free-text responses
  → Flag significant disagreement (range ≥ 2 points)

Calibration Session

Purpose

Align ratings across managers to ensure:

Format

Duration: 2 hours per calibration group (8–12 managers)
Facilitator: HRBP or People Ops partner
Participants: Managers with direct reports in the same cycle

Agenda:
  1. Review rating distribution across all managers (15 min)
  2. Each manager presents their 5s and 1s (evidence required) (45 min)
  3. Challenge outliers: "Why is Manager A giving more 4s than Manager B?" (30 min)
  4. Re-rate any contested employees (15 min)
  5. Finalize ratings and document calibration decisions (15 min)

Rules:
  - Evidence required for all 5s and 1s
  - Managers defend their ratings; group can suggest adjustment
  - HRBP has final say on distribution fairness
  - All adjustments documented with rationale

Calibration Red Flags

Review Conversation Guide

For Managers: How to Deliver Feedback

Opening (5 min):
  "Thank you for the self-assessment. Let's walk through
   the review together. This is a conversation, not a monologue."

Goal Review (10 min):
  "Let's look at each goal. Where do you see alignment
   or disagreement with my assessment?"

Competency Discussion (15 min):
  "In [competency], I noticed [specific example].
   How do you view this?"

360 Feedback Summary (5 min):
  "Themes from your 360 feedback: [strengths].
   One area peers mentioned: [growth area]."

Overall Rating (5 min):
  "Your overall rating is [X]. Here's what that means: [anchor].
   Does this feel fair to you?"

Development Plan (10 min):
  "For next cycle, let's focus on [1–2 growth areas].
   Here are specific actions and resources."

Employee Voice (10 min):
  "What do you need from me to succeed?
   What's working well? What's not?"

Closing (5 min):
  "I'll document our discussion. We'll revisit these
   goals in our next 1:1. Any final thoughts?"

Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) Trigger

Initiate a PIP when:

PIP Structure

Duration: 30, 60, or 90 days (documented at start)
Check-ins: Weekly 1:1 with manager + bi-weekly HR check-in

Document includes:
  1. Specific performance gaps (with evidence)
  2. Clear, measurable expectations for each gap
  3. Resources and support provided (training, mentorship, adjusted workload)
  4. Weekly milestone checklist
  5. Consequences of non-improvement (role change or separation)
  6. Employee acknowledgment signature

Success criteria: Employee meets ≥ 80% of PIP milestones by end date

Output

Review Summary Report

PERFORMANCE REVIEW SUMMARY — 2024 Annual Cycle
================================================
Employee: Jane Doe | Role: Senior Product Manager
Review Period: Jan 1, 2024 — Dec 31, 2024
Reviewer: Alex Chen (Director, Product)

GOAL ACHIEVEMENT:
  ✓ Q1 Platform Roadmap: Exceeded (delivered 2 weeks early)
  ✓ Q3 Feature Launch: Achieved (on time, on budget)
  ⚠ Cross-team Alignment: Partially Achieved (improved by Q4)
  ✓ Customer Satisfaction: Exceeded (NPS +12 pts)

COMPETENCY RATINGS:
  Technical/Functional:     4 — Exceeds
  Communication:            4 — Exceeds
  Collaboration:            3 — Meets
  Initiative & Ownership:   4 — Exceeds
  Growth & Learning:        4 — Exceeds

360 FEEDBACK SUMMARY:
  Average rating: 4.1/5.0 (from 6 raters)
  Common theme: "Strong strategic thinker"
  Growth area: "Delegate more effectively"

OVERALL RATING: 4 — Exceeds Expectations
CALIBRATION: Confirmed at calibration session (Jan 15)

DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
  1. Lead cross-functional initiative in Q1 to build delegation skills
  2. Enroll in advanced negotiation workshop
  3. Mentor a mid-level PM

COMPENSATION IMPACT: Eligible for above-midpoint increase per comp policy

Integration Points

Edge Cases