Performance Review ≠ Performance Rating

It’s January, which means many of us are diving into the dreaded performance review season. We’re writing our own reviews, and if we’re managers, we’re getting ready to write and write, and write some more, the reviews for our teams.

Somewhere, ChatGPT’s usage stats are likely spiking as people scramble to make sense of what to write. (see at the end how to use it for this activity)

Here’s the thing: most of us don’t hate performance reviews because they’re inherently useless. We hate them because the way we’re prompted to approach them doesn’t work, and intuitively, we know this.

We’re not really reviewing or assessing—we’re just jumping straight to judgment, slapping on a rating, and moving on. No wonder we dread the process. No wonder the focus becomes less about performance and more about securing a good rating—to justify a raise, a promotion, or just to avoid being labeled as underperforming. All the other promises of performance management—future performance, growth, development, engagement, satisfaction—get lost because of how we do it.

Review vs. Assessment

Performance reviews and performance assessments are not the same thing. They’re two distinct activities, both necessary, complementary, but with very different methods. The issue is that we treat them interchangeably.

Performance Review The word “review” literally means to view again. A performance review is about looking back at what happened over a specific period. It’s descriptive. It’s about viewing again the actions taken, the context they happened in, the information available, the pressures, the decisions made, the results produced. A review is about going back in time and seeing it all over again.

REVIEW = VIEW AGAIN

Performance Assessment Assessment, on the other hand, is about assigning value or rating. It means comparing performance against a defined standard. That standard might be the goals set at the beginning of the year, a job description, a career level matrix, team objectives, or any other explicit definition of performance. An assessment is where we evaluate how performance stands relative to these benchmarks.

ASSESS = RATE = COMPARE AGAINST A STANDARD

What’s the Problem?

Look into most performance management tools, templates, or instructions. More often than not, we are prompted to review performance with:

• What the person did well
• Areas of improvement

We are expected to jump straight to judgment. Because of this, we judge first and review later. Reviewing after the fact just feels like justifying the judgment—it feels defensive. This makes the experience frustrating and ineffective for both the manager and the person being reviewed.

Why the Distinction Matters

When we view performance again (re-view):

• We gain clarity about our thoughts, emotions, behaviors, and experiences.
• We can better understand the context, connect the dots, and make sense of patterns.
• We consolidate learning by turning experiences into meaningful insights. Reflection is what makes experience useful.
• We cultivate intentionality for the future by revealing automatic or reactive patterns of behavior.
• We build self-efficacy through realistic insights—not just "good job."
• We improve decision-making and problem-solving.
• We strengthen real resilience, not just wishful resilience.
• We support feedback integration (real, nice, natural feedback).
• ... and I could add another 12 bullets here

The list goes on. Reviewing is about laying the groundwork for everything we say we want performance management to achieve: learning, growth, and future performance.

Assessments, on the other hand, give clarity about where performance stands within the organizational system, in relation to goals or objectives, in relation to level and role, in relation to peers, in relation to team performance, etc. They help make decisions about promotions, compensation, and more. But assessments only make sense when built on a solid foundation of review and tied to explicit standards. Anything else feels arbitrary, biased, or baffling.

How to View-Again Performance

When reviewing performance, focus on being descriptive, not judgmental. Here’s a method that works:

1. Use a Timeline: Instead of categorizing performance as “positive” or “negative,” walk through the timeline of the period being reviewed. Start with last January.
2. Co-Review: Both the manager and the employee should contribute to this narrative. The goal is to create a shared view of what happened. Using a timeline often improves accuracy because both sides can piece the story together.
3. Stay Descriptive: Avoid jumping to conclusions or evaluations. Stick to the facts and context. The assessment will come later.

Think of this as telling the story of the performance. You’re just recounting what happened.

Yes, but isn’t filling in the box of "what went well" and "what can be improved" the same?

No. When we reflect as a story, we allow the natural strengths of human memory and cognition to do the heavy lifting. Memory works best when it follows the natural sequence of events, retaining the context, emotions, and decisions that shaped outcomes. Jumping straight to categories like “what went well” and “what needs improvement” interrupts this process, forcing fragmented recall and reinforcing biases. A timeline-based approach respects how memory is structured, enabling a fuller picture of the past. It avoids premature judgment, reduces hindsight bias, and preserves the context needed to understand actions and outcomes. Reflecting as a story not only deepens insights but also supports learning and growth, laying the groundwork for more deliberate and meaningful future performance. We do this also because we want future performance.

How to Assess Performance

Once the review is complete, we can move to assessment. This is where we compare the reviewed performance to the standard. Make sure the standards used are explicit, agreed upon, and well-documented—like goals, objectives, job descriptions, or career matrix definitions. Without explicit standards, assessments will feel like reverse micromanagement.

Why This Matters

• “We need everyone to step up and deliver results.”
• “Performance needs to accelerate to meet our strategic goals.”
• “Our future depends on consistent performance across all levels.”
• “The next level org requires next-level performance.”

If we talk and talk and talk about performance (and we do, we really do) ...

we need to put our practices where our goals are

How to Apply This Approach

Start this year by rethinking your performance reviews. Instead of rushing to categorize actions into “what went well” and “what needs improvement,” take the time to view performance as a story.

If you’re struggling to start, use tools at your disposal. For example, if you use tools like ChatGPT:

Prompt for Review: "We will work together to create a chronological timeline of (my) performance for use in my performance review. This review will focus on being descriptive, not evaluative, and will follow the approach outlined in this article [copy article there]. I will provide documents and information to help you build the timeline. As we go, please ask questions to clarify details or add context where needed. Use the timeline format to recount what happened, when, and why, based on the information provided."

Prompt for Assessment: "Using the reviewed performance timeline and the attached standards for assessment (e.g., goals, job descriptions, career level matrix, or team objectives), evaluate how the performance compares to these benchmarks. Be specific about which standard you are assessing against for each element of performance. Clearly indicate areas where performance met, exceeded, or fell short of definitions. Avoid vague statements, and focus on providing actionable insights linked to the explicit standards provided. If additional information is needed for clarity, ask targeted questions."

If you want to make sure the next year review does not create this year's dread you can:

• Transform the 101 document into a "performance diary" where both manager and employee document month by month or 101 by 101 performance. The cool thing about documents is that you can add anything there: you can copy paste ad hoc feedbacks or insights, you can copy paste review sessions and add in your contribution, you can add in any changes, pauses, hurdles, or transformations around goals, you can document the context, the decisions, the vibe. Can you imagine how the next Performance review will look like with such a document?
• You can also add in the 101 document the standards for assessment (copy the goals, the changes to the goals, the career matrix details, the agreements during the year) any discussions on how "meets expectations" looks like, but also what "exceeds expectations" looks like :)

It doesn't have to be pretty, it just has to have the information. We have the tools to add structure to it after the fact.