Do Performance Reviews Work? What Employees Really Think
Quick answer: Most employees don’t think their performance review is doing its job. In a 2018 Korn Ferry survey of more than 500 professionals, only 38% said a review was very or somewhat effective at improving their performance, and 36% chose “disappointing” as the word to describe the process. The problem is not the idea of feedback. It’s the once-a-year format, which arrives too late to change much and often doesn’t say what to do differently.
Performance reviews are one of the few workplace rituals that almost everyone has an opinion about, and it is rarely a warm one. Managers dread writing them, employees dread receiving them, and HR teams keep redesigning them. So what do employees actually think, and what would make the process worth the time?
What employees say about reviews
A Korn Ferry survey, conducted in January 2018 and released that March, asked 538 professionals about their reviews. The headline numbers are not flattering:
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Have an annual review with their boss | 75% |
| Say the review was very or somewhat effective at improving performance | 58% |
| Say it had no impact or was ineffective at improving performance | 42% |
| Say it was extremely or somewhat useful in understanding what to do differently | 57% |
| Chose “disappointing” to describe the process | 36% |
| Chose “inspiring” to describe the process | 25% |
Read the table carefully. Most respondents did get a review, and a majority found it useful in some way. But the group that found it useless is large, and the word “disappointing” beat “inspiring” by a clear margin. The survey is a press release from a consultancy and does not name its countries, so treat the figures as a useful snapshot rather than a definitive measure. The pattern is still hard to ignore.
Why the annual review struggles
Most of the problems come from timing and content. A review that covers twelve months of work is always going to be vague about what happened in March, and it arrives long after the work that needs fixing. By the time a review says “communicate more”, the project has finished, the moment has passed, and nobody remembers the detail.
Reviews also tend to mix two jobs that pull against each other. One is assessing performance, which often feeds into pay and promotion. The other is developing someone, which needs honesty and room to experiment. When both happen in the same meeting, people become defensive and the development part gets lost. The result is a conversation about a rating rather than a plan for the next quarter.
Goal setting adds to the burden. In the same survey, 33% of respondents said they spent more than seven hours a year on goal setting, and 25% spent four to six hours. That is a lot of time for goals that many people may not revisit until the next review.
What works better
Several changes come up again and again in the research and in practice:
- Feedback as it happens. Short, specific comments after a piece of work are more useful than a summary a year later. People can act on them while the detail is still fresh.
- Separate the conversations. Talk about development regularly, and handle pay or rating decisions in their own discussion so that they don’t crowd out the learning.
- Set fewer, clearer goals. A small number of goals that are revisited every few months is usually more useful than a long list reviewed once a year.
- Ask for the employee’s view. Reviews that begin with “what has gone well, and what would you change?” tend to feel less like a verdict and more like a joint plan.
None of this means abandoning formal reviews altogether. Many organisations still need a documented record. The question is whether the formal review confirms conversations that have already happened, or whether it is the first time someone hears about a problem.
What this means for managers
If you manage people, the most useful change you can make is to stop saving feedback for the review. Our guide on how to check in with employees gives practical ways to do that without turning every conversation into a formal meeting. If your team is struggling with motivation, a broader look at wellbeing is often the next step.
For employers, the review is also part of your employer brand. Candidates and employees talk about how feedback feels, and a process that people describe as disappointing does not help recruitment or retention. Our guide to employer branding covers how the everyday experience of work shapes what people say about you.
Frequently asked questions
Are performance reviews effective?
Mixed, according to the evidence. In a 2018 Korn Ferry survey of 538 professionals, 58% said a review was at least somewhat effective at improving performance, while 42% said it had no impact or was ineffective. Effectiveness depends heavily on how often feedback happens and how the conversation is run.
What do employees think of performance reviews?
Many are sceptical. In the same survey, 36% chose “disappointing” to describe the process, against 25% who chose “inspiring”. Most respondents still found some value, but the process often falls short of what it promises.
How often should performance reviews happen?
There’s no single answer, but many organisations are moving towards regular, shorter check-ins rather than one annual meeting. The right rhythm depends on the role and the team, so ask your employees what would help.
What makes a performance review useful?
Specific examples, clear next steps and a conversation that goes both ways. A review that tells someone exactly what to do differently over the next quarter is far more valuable than a rating on its own.
