64% of workers consider performance reviews a waste of time that doesn't help them improve their performance. Yet, thousands of hours are swallowed up in this ritual that no one really likes: not the employees, not the managers, not even HR.
In light of these statistics, one conclusion is inescapable: the annual performance review is increasingly being questioned for its limited usefulness and lack of fairness.
Here are the 7 deadly sins of performance reviews.
1. Evaluation is not continuous
A sports coach who only provides feedback once or twice a year would be considered absurd. Yet, this is still what many organizations do.
Performance is not managed through annual retrospective analysis. It is built through regular feedback, based on objective criteria and rapid adjustments.
2. Evaluation poorly measures the value created
Too often, companies do not measure actual performance, but rather its substitutes: time spent, workload, number of tasks, or deliverables produced.
However, a deliverable is not performance. The real question is not: “Is the project delivered?” but: “What value has it created?”
3. Evaluation is almost never comprehensive
We talk about triple bottom line performance: economic, social, and environmental. But most evaluation systems remain focused on short-term business and job-specific skills.
Sometimes, a behavioral layer is added. But it is often vague, subjective, and poorly connected to the company's values. Organizations and their members are asked to be responsible and humane, but the evaluation primarily focuses on the economic aspect.
4. Evaluation is disconnected from strategy
Strategy without execution is merely an intention. To be truly managed, it must be supported by strategic execution systems—KPIs, KIIs (Key Impact Indicators), and KBIs (Key Behavioral Indicators).
These systems link the pillars of the strategy—mission, purpose, vision, and values—to the criteria for evaluating employee performance. Without this link, the evaluation remains disconnected from what the organization truly wants to achieve.
5. Evaluation remains too individualistic
Performance is now largely a collective endeavor. It depends on teams, interactions, processes, and the quality of collaboration.
Yet, evaluations remain focused on the individual. The result: internal competition, reinforced silos, and unevenly distributed recognition. Team spirit is glorified, but rewards are still given as if everyone were working alone.
6. Evaluation is too formal
Employees expect short, frequent, and useful feedback. The world already operates this way: immediate feedback, rapid adjustments, and contextualized comments.
What do many companies still offer? An annual meeting that is long, formal, opaque, and disconnected from the moment the action took place.
7. Evaluation is not followed by action
A performance review that does not lead to concrete actions is a waste of time.
When a problem is discussed 6 to 12 months after it arises, it is often too late: priorities have changed, projects have evolved, and opportunities for correction have passed. The result: generic plans, vague intentions, or a lack of follow-up.
Conclusion
Why does the annual performance review still survive despite being criticized, considered largely useless, and sometimes even counterproductive?
Because it provides reassurance. Because it creates the illusion of a system. Because it allows you to tick an HR box.
But performance evaluation deserves better than an annual ritual. It must become continuous, objective, comprehensive, collective, corrective, simple, and linked to strategy.
Only then can it truly help people progress, rather than simply recording their performance after the fact.
Changing evaluation practices is difficult, but necessary, and even mandatory given the new European directive on pay transparency.
By Thomas Dusart, Co-founder of Gowlz
Read also this article: Which evidence is (not) admissible in employment law?