Chapter 10A – The Performance Review Timelines

Performance review frequency differs from company to company. Some complete this quarterly, some bi-annually and some once a year. While some try to do this monthly, it is not a good experience as the quick turnaround can impact the quality of the interaction. It is often felt that a quarterly review with a bi-annual rating calibration is sufficient to ensure that employees and organisations are aligned on goals and objectives and that there are no surprises at the end of the year. One of the best practices for an annual review that followed the April to March timelines to align with the compensation/financial cycle was to change the review period to a Jan to Dec, allowing the first quarter of the next year for review, calibrations, training plans etc, ensuring that the process gets completed before the start of the India financial cycle.

Completing a quarterly performance review involves several steps to ensure it’s conducted thoroughly and effectively. Here’s a suggested timeline for the process, including self-review and manager review:

1. Preparation Phase (1-2 Weeks Before Review Meeting):
   • Self-Review: Employees should be given access to the performance review form or template to complete their self-assessment. It is a good practice to encourage employees to reflect on their achievements, challenges, and goals every month, consolidating the data at the end of the quarter.
   • Manager Preparation: Managers should review the employee’s previous goals, projects, and relevant performance metrics. They should also prepare feedback based on observations and interactions with the employee.
2. Self-Review (1 Week Before Review Meeting):
   • Employees complete their self-assessment, focusing on accomplishments, areas for improvement, and goals for the upcoming quarter. Coaching and training employees to be honest and reflective in their self-assessment, providing specific examples where possible, is a good practice.
3. Manager Review (1 Week Before Review Meeting):
   • Managers review the self-assessment submitted by the employee.
   • They assess the employee’s performance against established goals and expectations, considering both qualitative and quantitative factors, and document their observations, feedback, and any areas for improvement.
4. Review Meeting (During Week of Performance Review):
   • Schedule a face-to-face meeting between the employee and manager to discuss performance.
   • During the meeting, both parties should share their perspectives, discuss achievements, challenges, and areas for development.
   • Based on the discussion, set SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) goals for the upcoming quarter.
5. Post-Review Follow-Up (Within 1 Week After Review Meeting):
   • Managers should provide a written summary of the review meeting, including agreed-upon goals and action plans.
   • Employees and managers should both sign off on the review document to acknowledge its contents.
   • Schedule regular quarterly check-ins to monitor goal progress and provide ongoing feedback and support.
6. Continuous Feedback Loop:
   • Encourage open communication between employees and managers throughout the quarter, not just during formal review periods.
   • Provide opportunities for feedback from peers, clients, or other stakeholders to get a holistic view of performance.

A recent best practice is to document templates, experiences, achievements, and help wanted on a monthly basis, firm the document quarterly, have a less formal conversation with the line manager at a high level, and conduct the more formal review once every six months. This has been felt to be necessary due to enormous pressures and commitments around project deadlines, workload balancing, and improving the overall effectiveness of the process.

Best Practise – Removal of bell curves or forced ranking

Bell curves, or the practice of applying a normal distribution to employee performance evaluations, have been historically used in organizations as a means of standardizing and quantifying performance assessments. The underlying idea is to approximate a typical distribution of employee performance, with most falling into the middle (average), fewer at the extremes (high and low performers), and even fewer at the very extremes. This methodology was believed to provide a structured way to compare and rank employees, facilitating decisions related to promotions, bonuses, and performance improvement plans. However, critics argue that bell curves can oversimplify the complex nature of human performance, leading to demotivation, unhealthy competition, and potentially biased evaluations. Despite their widespread use in the past, many organizations are now moving away from bell curves in favor of more nuanced and individualized performance management approaches that prioritize continuous feedback, development, and collaboration, and allow a higher percentage to be high performers if their results justify the tag,