Conducting Effective Performance Reviews: Best Practices

What is this page about?

A research-backed guide to conducting effective performance reviews, examining the large gap between how reviews are typically run and what organizational psychology says works. It covers why annual reviews often fail (recency bias, defensiveness from high stakes, feedback arriving too late, ratings that can reduce performance), the case for continuous feedback and separating development from evaluation, how to write an effective self-review, how managers should prepare and focus on two or three high-impact areas, calibration for fairer ratings, and making the review a culmination rather than a surprise.

What has been corrected on this page?

Every accepted correction to this page is recorded with the exact change, so readers can see how the page improved over time.

1. 11 July 2026 · corrected by Emir Baycan

   Castilla (2015) 'Accounting for the Gap' was published in Organization Science, matching the article's own reference list, not the American Sociological Review.

   Before

   Castilla (2015), published in the American Sociological Review, found that calibration

   After

   Castilla (2015), published in Organization Science, found that calibration

   Why: Verified live: body and bibliography already correctly say Organization Science. FAQ does not reference this study. No further action needed.

   View the full record →

Who checked this page?

1 contributor has checked "Conducting Effective Performance Reviews: Best Practices" on When Notes Fly. Each name below links to that person's public CitePep profile, where every contribution they have made is listed with the exact change they proposed.