Are performance reviews driving you, or are you driving your performance reviews?

Are performance reviews driving you, or are you driving your performance reviews?

For many people, the phrase performance review triggers a familiar pattern of tension, scanning for criticism, rehearsing defences. It can feel like something that is done to you. What if it felt like a springboard to shared success, and acknowledgment of success and a guide to future opportunity.

Thought Exercise for Reviewers: Who on your team might you promote to be your boss and how would you help them get there and be great at it?

Within the EASE Framework, a performance review is a live test of leadership, even if you are not the most senior person in the room. It is a structured opportunity to:

• Explore your real context, not just the formal form.
• Align expectations and definitions of value.
• Support the relationship with your manager.
• Empower yourself to shape what comes next.

If we want to lead and to enable leadership then we need to learn, educate, advise and delegate so let us consider the conversation through EASE.

Explore: Reframing what the review is actually for

Most organisations treat performance reviews as a compliance ritual, a necessary part of compensation and rewards that has the potential for discomfort on both sides. Feedback Intervention Theory (Kluger and DeNisi, 1996) suggests that feedback interventions improve performance on average, but more than one third make performance worse, especially when they trigger self protection rather than learning.

Your performance review system might be defeating your people.

So start by quietly exploring the reality of your system and what it is doing and whether or not it is equitable:

• Is the review mainly about pay and calibration?
• Does your manager have to stack and rank people?
• Are criteria transparent, or vague and political?

Then explore your own story, not just theirs. Before the meeting, write a one page narrative:

• 3 to 5 key achievements, with simple data where you can.
• What you are genuinely proud of and what you have learnt.
• Where you see your biggest growth edge.

You are not merely trying to impress. You are orienting the discussion around task, learning and contribution, rather than letting the conversation drift into vague labels about personality, which is precisely where feedback research shows it becomes most harmful.

You might open with:

“I have pulled together a short summary of my contributions and what I have learnt this year. Could we start there, then look at how that fits with your view?”

You are exploring together, not waiting to be inspected.

Align: Co-author expectations instead of waiting for a verdict

The EASE question at this stage is simple: “What does good look like, how is it measured, and do we agree?”

Feedback orientation research tells us that people are more likely to use feedback when they feel involved, informed and able to act on it. Yet many reviews focus on ratings rather than clarity. To shift into Align, steer the conversation toward future excellence and how to get there, not just past errors.

Instead of asking:

“What did I do wrong?”

Ask questions that co -create new standards and expectations:

• “If you were me, what would you focus on next year to create the most value?”
• “What would excellent look like in this role 12 months from now?”
• “What outcomes would make this review an obvious ‘exceeds’ next year?”

This is not performance theatre. You are working with your manager or your employee to make the criteria explicit, so you can both tell whether you are progressing. You can look out for each other

From an EASE perspective you are:

• Making assumptions discussable and creating psychological safety.
• Surfacing hidden priorities.
• Turning a one way judgement into a joint planning exercise.

This is how you build alignment even inside imperfect systems. In a big orgnsiation you may struggle to change the formal system, but within your own team you may be able to do some things differently

Support: Use gratitude and shared credit to strengthen the relationship

EASE treats relationships as part of the system, not a soft afterthought. The quality of the link between you and your manager is one of the strongest predictors of performance, commitment and retention. High quality Leader Member Exchange (LMX) relationships are repeatedly shown to be built on mutual trust, respect and perceived fairness.

Gratitude is one of the simplest ways to reinforce that relationship without flattery. A growing evidence base shows that well designed gratitude interventions increase resilience, reduce burnout and strengthen social bonds at work.

So, you may want to treat your review as a gratitude opportunity, not only a performance tribunal. Arrive with two or three specific acknowledgements:

• “I really appreciated when you backed me on the X decision in Q2. That gave me the confidence to push for Y.”
• “Your comments on the draft for client Z helped me see the issue earlier. It changed how I approach that work now.”

You are doing three things at once:

1. Lowering defensiveness for both of you.
2. Reframing the meeting as partnership, not prosecution.
3. Making visible the relational part of performance.

You can deepen this by sharing credit deliberately in your one pager:

“With your support on X, I was able to deliver Y, which led to Z result.”

If you want to explore more about praise and then check out Why does flattery work? What is the cost of false flattery? in the Course Correction Knowledge Centre, which unpicks how to keep influence without sacrificing integrity. (coursecorrection.co.uk)

Support, when your manager feels threatened

Sometimes your manager experiences your competence as a threat, not an asset. Sometimes we feel unfairly judged, though it may not be the case. These symptoms may be familiar and will feel like injustice or worse, gaslighting, you may need some objective help to judge or arbitrate the worst cases, but for the most part you may be able to improve the relationship. Watch out for:

• Nit picking minor issues.
• Withholding or diluting praise.
• Reframing achievements as “no big deal”.

You cannot fix someone else’s ego, but you can change the relational frame and your own reactions. You can also work on your own ego and identity narrative, to recognise youur self and become your own master.

Within EASE, that means:

• Signal partnership, not rivalry
• Protect perceived fairness and reward it
• Ask for alignment and authority, over permission

LMX research shows that when people perceive the relationship as fair and respectful, engagement and performance rise. However, when they perceive favouritism or rivalry, counterproductive behaviours increase.

If the power dynamics stay difficult, consider these protective moves:

• Keep a simple written reflective journal of decisions, contributions, agreements and any shifting goals.
• Seek mentoring from someone parallel to your manager, not only above them.
• If behaviour crosses into bullying or discrimination, use HR or formal channels. That is not being difficult, it is protecting your psychological and professional safety.
• Keep in mind unspoken psychological contracts, organisational politics and what matters to you.

Empower: Make your review a launch pad, not the end of the story

The final part of EASE is Empower. You may ask:

“Given what I now see, what power do I still have?”

You may empower yourself in three main ways.

1. Ask for advice, not just scores

Have you noticed how people are more constructive and concrete when asked for advice rather than evaluation.

You might say:

“I would like to use this review for two things: to thank you for what has helped me this year, and to get your advice on where I can create the most value next year. I have brought a short overview of my key contributions to make that easier. Can we start there?”

This positions you as a serious professional, not a passive recipient.

2. Build your own longitudinal evidence

Annual reviews are episodic. Your career is not. Treat your one pager as the latest entry in an ongoing file that you control:

• Key outcomes delivered.
• Skills developed and applied.
• Feedback patterns, both positive and corrective.

You are building a personal transcript of value, which you can use for internal moves, external roles, or simply to counter selective memory when things get political.

For founders and leaders reading this, the same principle applies at team level. If you want to reduce flight risks, you need repeatable ways to spot drift early and course correct, not just end of year surprises. For a broader view on this, see https://www.coursecorrection.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-causes-staff-turnover-in-high-growth-companies

3. Decide where to invest your talent

The hard truth is that no amount of personal reframing can fully compensate for badly designed systems. Performance management that relies on forced rankings, opaque criteria or cultures that punish honesty will continue to produce distortion and cynicism. The outcome may be gaming of the system by some and loss of trust by others. Se https://www.coursecorrection.co.uk/knowledge-centre/why-does-flattery-work

Use your next review to observe the wider system:

• Does feedback feel fair, specific and developmental?
• Are mistakes treated as data, or as ammunition?
• Do leaders role model openness and learning, or only control?
• Is the review shared to a wider audience and checked with another level of authority? How do you prevent a manager from keeping information to themselves, perhasp to retain an high flyer in their team

If the answer is consistently “no”, your most powerful performance decision may not be about your next objective, but about where you choose to contribute.

What founders and leaders everywhere ask next

1. How do I train my managers to run reviews this way, not just my most senior leaders? Start with simple scripts and structures rather than abstract competencies. Teach managers to ask three standard questions about achievements, learning and next year’s excellence, then layer in evidence based ideas like gratitude and advice seeking.

2. Can I use EASE to redesign my entire performance system, not just the conversations? Yes. Explore the current reality of your process, align on what performance is really for, build support through transparent criteria and peer input, then empower people with more frequent, lighter touch check ins instead of annual cliff edges.

3. What if my organisation is very traditional and HR will not change the process? Assume the form stays the same and change the experience of the meeting. Give people templates for one page narratives, coaching questions for alignment and guidance on handling difficult power dynamics. You can shift culture from the inside out.

4. How does this apply if I am the founder and my “performance review” is with investors, not a line manager? Exactly the same logic. Explore the real context and explore situations together, success is desired by everyone and itneeds to be real just as much as it might be percieved

Treat your performance review as a leadership moment, not a verdict. This is one waypoint on your career journey, a formal data point that can help you to understand where things stand and what your options are. You do nto need to remain a passive pwn in the organisation, you can take some control. Use it to explore your context, align expectations, support the relationship and empower your next move, with EASE.

References

Adler, S., Campion, M., Colquitt, A., Grubb, A., Murphy, K., Ollander-Kreutzer, J., & Pulakos, E. D. (2016). Getting rid of performance ratings: Genius or folly? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(2), 219–252.

Algoe, S. B. (2012). Find, remind, and bind: The functions of gratitude in everyday relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(6), 455–469.

DeNisi, A., & Smith, C. E. (2014). Performance appraisal, performance management, and firm-level performance: A review, a proposed model, and new directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 127–179.

Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader–member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759.

Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 377–389.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.

London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12(1), 81–100.

Wood, A. M., Froh, J. J., & Geraghty, A. W. A. (2010). Gratitude and well-being: A review and theoretical integration. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 890–905.

‍