You know that sick feeling in your stomach when December rolls around and HR sends out the "friendly reminder" about performance reviews? Yeah, me too.
I spent fifteen minutes last week listening to a client from Adelaide vent about their company's annual review process. "It's like a medieval torture device," she said, "but with more spreadsheets." And honestly? She's not wrong.
After two decades in workplace consulting—spanning everything from tech startups in Melbourne to manufacturing plants in Geelong—I'm convinced that traditional performance reviews are one of the most destructive processes we inflict on our people. Yet we keep doing them because, well, that's what we've always done.
Here's my controversial opinion: Most annual performance reviews should be scrapped entirely. Not reformed, not improved—binned.
Let's be honest about what actually happens during review season. Managers scramble to remember what their team members did six months ago. Employees stress for weeks about a conversation that determines their pay rise and career progression. HR departments create elaborate rating systems that pretend to measure "cultural fit" and "leadership potential."
It's performance theatre at its worst.
I worked with a logistics company in Brisbane where managers were spending three hours per review, just to tick boxes that nobody really understood. Meanwhile, their star performer—a warehouse supervisor who'd prevented two major safety incidents—got marked down because she was "too direct" in team meetings. Brilliant.
The whole system assumes that meaningful feedback can be compressed into one annual conversation. That's like trying to parent by having one big chat with your kids each year and hoping for the best.
Want to know the dirty secret about performance reviews? Most managers hate them as much as employees do.
I've sat in on dozens of review meetings, and the pattern is always the same. The manager reads from prepared notes, the employee nods politely, everyone agrees on some vague goals for next year, and then they both walk away feeling like they've wasted an hour of their lives.
The real damage happens in the weeks leading up to reviews. Productivity drops. People start covering their backs. Team collaboration suffers because everyone's suddenly worried about individual metrics.
One manufacturing client told me their production quality actually decreased during review season because operators were so focused on their personal targets they stopped helping each other solve problems.
Here's what I've seen transform teams: frequent, informal check-ins that focus on solving problems rather than scoring performance.
Instead of annual reviews, try monthly conversations. Not formal meetings with rating scales, but genuine discussions about what's working, what isn't, and what support people need.
A construction firm in Perth switched to this approach after their annual reviews consistently ranked their best site foreman poorly because he didn't "communicate according to company standards." In reality, his direct communication style was exactly what kept projects on time and workers safe. The monthly check-ins allowed his manager to understand this and focus on outcomes rather than personality assessments.
The key is making these conversations about problem-solving, not performance judging. When people feel supported rather than evaluated, they're more likely to be honest about challenges and more open to feedback.
Most feedback becomes useless if you wait months to deliver it. If someone's struggling with time management, telling them about it in December when the problem started in March helps nobody.
Good managers give feedback immediately—both positive and developmental. They don't store it up for review season like some kind of professional Santa Claus.
I learned this the hard way early in my career when I waited six months to address a team member's communication issues. By then, the behaviour was entrenched, other team members were frustrated, and what should have been a five-minute conversation became a major performance management issue.
Here's where most reviews really fail: they try to combine performance feedback with career planning. These are completely different conversations that require different mindsets.
Performance feedback should happen regularly and focus on immediate improvement. Career development discussions should happen quarterly and focus on long-term growth, skills development, and opportunities.
Mixing them together creates confusion. People walk away unclear whether they're doing well in their current role or whether they need to start looking for new opportunities.
The most effective approach I've seen involves professional development as an ongoing conversation rather than an annual event. Teams that invest in continuous skill building consistently outperform those that rely on annual planning cycles.
Let's address the obvious question: how do you determine salary increases without annual reviews?
Simple. Base pay decisions on market rates, budget availability, and demonstrated value contribution. You don't need a complex rating system to figure out who's adding value to your organisation.
Some of my most successful clients have moved to transparent pay bands with clear criteria for advancement. People know exactly what they need to do to progress, and managers can have honest conversations about development without the artificial pressure of review rankings.
If you're thinking about ditching annual reviews, here's what works:
Start with manager training. Most supervisors have never learned how to give effective feedback or have meaningful development conversations. They default to annual reviews because they don't know any other approach.
Set up regular one-on-ones focused on support rather than evaluation. Ask questions like "What's blocking your progress?" and "What resources would help you be more effective?" instead of "Rate your performance from 1 to 5."
Create separate processes for career development, compensation reviews, and performance improvement. Don't try to achieve everything in one conversation.
Document ongoing feedback rather than preparing for big review meetings. When everything's captured in real-time, there are no surprises and no need for elaborate review preparation.
Traditional performance reviews are a relic from an era when people stayed in the same job for decades and managers had time to prepare elaborate assessments.
Modern workplaces need continuous feedback, immediate problem-solving, and ongoing development conversations. Annual reviews actively work against these needs by creating artificial deadlines and formal barriers to honest communication.
The teams getting this right are the ones treating performance management as an ongoing partnership rather than an annual judgment process. They're seeing better retention, higher engagement, and more effective professional development.