By Prof. Flora Chiang, Professor of Management, CEIBS

For decades, annual performance reviews have been a defining feature of performance management in organisations. But as work becomes more dynamic and human-centred, are they still relevant?

Drawing on behavioural research and global corporate practice, in this article, CEIBS Professor of Management Flora Chiang explores the leadership capabilities required to facilitate a shift from traditional annual reviews to more adaptable methods suited to the modern work environment, and how to do so in a way that is both meaningful and sustainable.

For decades, organisations have traditionally relied on the performance review as a cornerstone of their performance management systems. Typically, this process is implemented as an annual year-end or bi-annual evaluation of an employee's performance and features a combination of ratings, rankings, and retrospective judgments completed by supervisors on standardised appraisal forms, whereby employees are evaluated according to a predefined range of objectives and competencies. Employees, in turn, may also submit self-evaluations, thus permitting comparison between managerial assessment and employee self-perceptions of performance.
Despite its widespread use and popularity, this traditional practice suffers from several shortcomings and constraints that may inhibit its effectiveness.

Why Traditional Performance Reviews Are Losing Their Edge

First, it is often considered backward-looking or retrospective because the performance evaluation itself often occurs months or even a full year after important events have occurred. However, as behavioural research suggests, feedback is likely to be more effective when it is timely and closely follows the completion of a task or behaviour. When feedback is delayed or aggregated over a long period, it also risks being vague, disconnected from the context, or even worse forgotten.

Second, performance is dynamic and ebbs and flows based on changing priorities, skills, team dynamics, and other factors; annual appraisal snapshots fail to fully capture such complexity.

Third, traditional methods of appraisal are being influenced by millennial and Gen Z employees in the workforce. These generations don't just expect more frequent, two-way communication; they value it as essential to engagement, growth, and psychological safety. They also prefer digital, asynchronous, and mobile-friendly channels for communication, including performance feedback.

Together, these forces have placed growing pressure on traditional appraisal systems to adapt.

The Rise of Continuous Performance Management

Technology can make continuous performance management easier to sustain by bringing goals, feedback, and development conversations into the tools employees already use. Adobe's Check-in model, for example, replaced annual ratings with ongoing two-way conversations and has since developed into a digital system where employees and managers document goals, exchange feedback, and discuss career development throughout the year. Adobe now holds formal Check-in conversations quarterly while allowing feedback to be exchanged at any time.

The same approach is visible in many businesses in Asia. Tata Motors replaced a process centred on annual reviews with a continuous feedback system integrated into Microsoft Teams. Employees can update progress against goals, request specific feedback, and receive real-time input from managers throughout the year. Tata Motors reported that the system reduced documentation time, increased purposeful manager-employee interaction, and improved trust in the review process.

Earlier adopters such as GE and Deloitte helped establish this move away from annual appraisal as the main performance conversation. GE replaced its once-a-year process with Performance Development and real-time feedback tools, while Deloitte introduced frequent check-ins alongside its Performance Snapshot approach. Adobe also reported a 30% reduction in voluntary turnover after rolling out its new approach globally, although that result should be treated as an outcome associated with the broader performance-management change rather than evidence that frequent feedback alone caused the reduction.

More recent research strengthens the case for ongoing development conversations. In McKinsey's 2024 global performance management survey of roughly 1,200 employees across 11 countries, only 21% of respondents who received no development conversations said their performance management system motivated them, compared with 77% of those receiving ongoing feedback. The same research found that nearly one-quarter of respondents believed their managers or feedback providers lacked the skills needed to conduct performance reviews effectively.

Gallup likewise finds that meaningful feedback at least once a week is strongly associated with engagement: across seven studies covering more than 44,000 responses, about seven in ten employees who strongly agreed they had received meaningful feedback in the previous week were highly engaged, compared with roughly one in four among those who did not.

That distinction is important. Replacing an annual appraisal with more frequent conversations does not improve performance simply by adding more meetings or better software. Managers still need to set clear expectations, give useful feedback, listen well, and turn performance conversations into development opportunities. Technology can make those conversations easier to document and sustain, but the quality of the manager-employee relationship still determines much of their value.

What Makes Continuous Conversations Work?

At its core, continuous performance management depends on the quality of the relationship between managers and employees. Its effectiveness rests on how consistently managers communicate, listen, and support development. So what does engaging well actually require?

Active and empathic listening

Content unchanged. Heading simplified from "Beyond Hearing—Active & Empathic Listening" so the capability name leads; the descriptive half can open the paragraph instead. Same treatment for all seven.

A coaching mindset

The shift from a control to coaching mindset requires managers to shift away from diagnosing deficits and prescribing solutions toward unlocking potential by asking reflective questions, like "What do you need to figure this out?" or "What support would help you move forward?" In other words, managers must help the employee reflect on patterns, challenge their self-limiting assumptions, and reconnect with their agency even during setbacks.

Feedback fluency

Research consistently shows that feedback is most impactful when it is timely, specific, balanced, behaviourally grounded, and action-oriented. However, frequent feedback that is overly critical or vague (e.g., "Great job!") may not be effective. It also needs to be delivered with "fluency", including offering authentic appreciation, discussing growth opportunities clearly, linking observations to observable actions (not personality traits), focusing on impact (e.g., "When the report missed the deadline, the client's trust was eroded"), and co-designing concrete and self-owned next steps.

Psychological safety

Without the employee having a sense of psychological safety, conversations about performance may deteriorate from performance to silence. Psychological safety isn't about being nice; it's about creating an environment where employees feel safe to speak up, admit mistakes, ask for help, and push back without fear of punishment or humiliation. Managers can cultivate this by modelling vulnerability ("Here's where I misstepped…"), responding non-defensively to dissent, framing errors as data rather than personal failure, honouring confidentiality, and following through consistently.

Adaptive agility

Employees differ vastly in experience, motivation, communication preferences, cultural background, neurodiversity, and career stage. A high-potential individual early in their role may need scaffolding and affirmation; a seasoned contributor may seek autonomy and strategic stretch. Great managers will calibrate their approach accordingly: adjusting pace, depth, structure, and even channel (e.g., in-person vs. digital) based on who they are communicating with, not reverting to rigid templates. They also know when to shift intentionally from task-focused discussions (e.g., "How's the Q3 deliverable coming?") to development-oriented conversations ("What skill are you stretching into here—and how can I support that?"), while fiercely protecting time from being consumed by day-to-day operational firefighting.

Dynamic goal integration

Traditional reviews are anchored to fixed annual goals, and are therefore often disconnected from shifting business needs or emerging opportunities. Agile conversations, by contrast, treat goals as living agreements. Managers help employees connect daily work to evolving team objectives, revisit commitments regularly (e.g., through quarterly OKRs or learning-focused growth sprints), and celebrate progress, learning, and course correction, not just binary outcomes.

Self-awareness and humble accountability

Finally, it is critical for managers to recognise their role to guide, not dictate; to enable, not control; and to listen deeply and act thoroughly, not superficially and without follow-up.. No technique or framework can compensate for unchecked bias, unexamined triggers, or blind spots in perception. Managers who undermine trust often do so unintentionally—through micro-inequities, inconsistent standards, tone-deaf timing, or unconscious assumptions about competence or potential.
Effective communication begins with introspection: seeking candid feedback on one's own management style, actively re-evaluating assumptions, examining patterns in who receives stretch assignments or constructive input—and committing publicly to learning, not perfection.

What Changes When Reviews Become Conversations

In essence, continuous performance management is a fundamental reimagining of how we support people. It doesn't eliminate evaluation but rather relocates it—shifting from retrospective judgment to forward-looking development, from an isolated annual event to an embedded continuous practice, and from a top-down assessment to reciprocal growth.
When done well, it transforms performance feedback from a transactional, often anxiety-inducing ritual into a trusted catalyst for belonging, capability development, and sustained contribution, far exceeding what any annual performance review could ever achieve.
Moving from formal reviews to meaningful, frequent conversations is not primarily about changing calendars or adopting new tools. It's about deepening human connection and creating purpose, empathy, and intentionality. It requires managers to reframe performance management from a compliance-driven exercise to a vital developmental responsibility: an opportunity to affirm strengths, navigate challenges, co-create growth, and demonstrate genuine care—delivered with tact, timeliness, and unwavering respect.

Flora Chiang is Professor of Management at CEIBS. Her research interests primarily focus on factors influencing employee behaviour and performance, how different forms of leadership affect both individual and organisational outcomes, the dynamics of managing people and organisations across borders, and how knowledge is created, managed, and diffused.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a performance review?

A performance review is a formal, typically annual or bi-annual evaluation of an employee's work, usually involving ratings, rankings, and a supervisor's retrospective judgment against a predefined set of objectives and competencies.

Are annual performance reviews going away?

Not entirely, but their role is changing. Continuous performance management doesn't eliminate evaluation; it shifts it from a single retrospective judgment once a year to an embedded, ongoing practice built on frequent, forward-looking conversations between managers and employees.

What is continuous performance management?

Continuous performance management replaces the single annual review with frequent, informal check-ins between managers and employees, often supported by real-time feedback platforms. Companies like Adobe, GE and Deloitte have adopted this model, centring conversations on goals, feedback and development rather than retrospective ratings.

What skills do managers need to give continuous feedback?

Managers need active and empathic listening, a coaching mindset, feedback fluency, and the ability to build psychological safety. They also need adaptive agility to tailor their approach to each employee, skill in treating goals as living priorities rather than fixed annual targets, and a strong foundation of self-awareness and accountability.