Blog Performance Reviews Part 1: Laying the Groundwork for a High-Quality Performance Review Share This post is the first in a three-part series on how leaders can manage performance reviews that strengthen development, clarify expectations, and support organizational performance. Whether you were blindsided by criticism that felt out of the blue or left confused about how to implement the feedback you received, most of us have had a performance review that left something to be desired. These moments reflect a broad challenge in how many organizations approach reviews. Too often, the process becomes a box-ticking exercise that doesn’t accomplish much of anything at all. It doesn’t need to be this way. Reviews can and should give people a clear sense of direction and reinforce the standards the business depends on. But that kind of conversation is only possible with preparation, detailed observation, and a clear view of the leadership context each executive is operating in. In this blog, we outline some of the most important components of a strong review process and how to set the conditions for a productive conversation. Establishing a Continuous Assessment Habit Good reviews start long before end-of-year forms land in your inbox. Real feedback requires detailed observation across the full cycle of the year: Routine interactions demonstrate the ability to execute day-to-day. High-stakes moments reveal decision-making under pressure. Cross-functional work shows how someone can (or can’t!) influence outside their own team. Documentation is key. A written record makes sure your feedback is grounded in detail and that you actually remember how someone performed. The human mind is extremely susceptible to recency bias, but performance reviews are supposed to be holistic. A strong performer can fumble the ball in Q4. A low-performer can land an unlikely win in December. Real-time notes help you spot patterns that might otherwise go unnoticed or get overshadowed by recent events. It’s important to remember that while formal reviews may only happen once or twice a year, nothing in them should feel like new information. Continual feedback, quick touchpoints, and small course corrections throughout the year keep people oriented and prevent end-of-year surprises. Setting Clear Criteria Observation gains meaning when it is tied to well-defined expectations. Setting those expectations at the beginning of the year gives the review its foundation and creates a shared reference point for evaluation. Themes drawn from your notes then shape the conversation. They link daily behaviors to longer-term leadership expectations and keep the review grounded in what actually happened. A review built on clear expectations and documented evidence becomes a far more reliable leadership tool. Evaluating Mindset and Leadership Range With that foundation in place, it’s time to take a closer look at behavior. Understanding how someone learns, adapts, and leads gives you a clearer view of their long-term trajectory. Mindset is one part of that picture. Growth-oriented executives often bring curiosity and energy to difficult work, while fixed-mindset leaders are less adaptable. These patterns help you decide what kinds of experiences will move someone forward. Leadership range adds another layer: Vertical leadership reflects functional clarity, operating habits, and day-to-day execution. Horizontal leadership reflects cross-functional alignment, enterprise-level coordination, and the ability to move work without formal authority. Looking at both dimensions shows you how an executive operates across the system and where development efforts should focus. Understanding Scope and Stress Behavior Leadership shows up differently depending on the demands of the role and the conditions in which decisions are made. Put simply: scope matters. It shapes the complexity of decisions, the cadence of work, and the judgment required to navigate the role. Some roles stretch an executive into unfamiliar territory, while others operate within more “comfortable” guardrails. Looking at performance through this lens helps determine whether outcomes reflect true capability or if the executive is benefiting from a “halo effect” tied to their role. A quick word on role bias: it’s real. A function’s demands can shape how someone is perceived. Some roles mask broader potential. Others give executives visibility that can be misread as broader capability. A careful review helps you separate the role’s influence from the person’s actual ability. How an executive behaves under pressure adds another layer. Stress events reveal prioritization habits, communication patterns, and resilience in ways that day-to-day activities don’t. Those moments often surface leadership tendencies worth paying attention to. Positioning the Executive for Growth A performance review records outcomes, but it also charts the course ahead. The conversation should leave people with a firm understanding of where they’ve been, where they’re going, and how their role is expected to evolve. Clear development priorities give that direction shape and help concretize the path ahead. In Part Two, we’ll look at how reviews evolve into career discussions that shape long-term development and prepare executives for expanded responsibilities.