Annual reviews ask humans to do something we are not built for: accurately remember, fairly judge, and clearly coach, all at once, under deadline pressure.You can do better. Not by adding more forms. By changing the rhythm.
Marketing Lead
•
Some managers actually try to write 12 months of feedback in one sitting.
That's the reality of most managers. On Sunday night, their generator is humming outside, a Word doc is open, a spreadsheet of ratings is waiting, and a WhatsApp message from HR insists, "Please submit before 9 AM." By the third review, they're copying phrases like “meets expectations” the way people copy captions for Instagram.
That moment captures the real problem behind continuous performance management vs annual reviews. Annual reviews ask humans to do something we are not built for: accurately remember, fairly judge, and clearly coach, all at once, under deadline pressure.
You can do better. Not by adding more forms. By changing the rhythm.
Continuous performance management is an ongoing set of short habits: clear goals, frequent check-ins, timely feedback, and documented examples. It is less about a big event and more about keeping performance on track while work is still happening.
Annual reviews are typically a once-a-year formal evaluation. In theory, they summarize performance, guide development, and support decisions like pay and promotions. In practice, they often become a memory test with a rating at the end.
A lot of respected institutions have noticed the shift. The CIPD’s performance management guidance reflects how organizations increasingly lean toward regular conversations and feedback as part of managing performance, even if formal reviews still exist.
If you are in HR or ops, you’ve probably seen some version of this:
The annual review is not always “bad.” It is just too slow for many environments.
This is where context matters.
Constraint acknowledgment #1: Time is tight. Managers are overloaded and often cover multiple functions.
Constraint acknowledgment #2: KPIs are sometimes unclear or moving. Roles shift quickly in growing companies.
Constraint acknowledgment #3: Documentation is uneven. Work happens in WhatsApp, hallway conversations, and quick calls, so evidence disappears.
In that reality, annual reviews tend to reward confidence, visibility, and proximity to leadership, not consistent delivery.
It’s tempting to treat performance management as “an HR thing.”
But the consequences show up in operational metrics.
When feedback is timely and meaningful, people stay engaged. Gallup has reported strong relationships between frequent, meaningful feedback and engagement, including a widely cited data point that employees who say they received meaningful feedback in the past week are far more likely to be engaged.
Even if you don’t use Gallup’s exact framing internally, the lived reality is simple: silence for months creates anxiety, not performance.
Infrequent reviews amplify bias. Recency bias. Halo effect. Similarity bias. Leniency or severity by manager.
Bias is not just a culture problem. It is a system design problem.
Annual reviews concentrate work into a stressful window. Continuous performance management spreads the effort, but if you design it badly, it becomes death by meetings.
The goal is not “more conversations.” The goal is shorter, clearer, more useful conversations.
A lot of teams try to modernize, then quietly revert to annual-only because the new approach feels chaotic.
Here are the mistakes I see most often.
If your check-in cadence adds hours to the week, it will fail.
Continuous performance management works when it replaces longer, painful work later. It should reduce admin, not increase it.
Feedback is about improving performance. Ratings are about decisions.
Mix them carelessly and you get politics.
A practical boundary:
Tools help, but they do not fix unclear expectations or weak coaching.
Deloitte’s work on performance management emphasizes clarity of purpose and mindset over obsessing about models and process mechanics.
If the manager asks “what are you working on?” every time, the check-in becomes a project update, not performance management.
You need a small set of outcomes that define “good.”
Even with frequent conversations, if nothing is captured, you’ll still do the end-of-year scramble.
This is one reason some public-sector guidance explicitly calls for continuous feedback plus documentation as part of monitoring. For example, Nigeria’s PMS guidelines reference continuous feedback and periodic reviews as part of performance monitoring.
You do not need to pick a side like it’s a football rivalry.
Most organizations land on a hybrid.
Annual reviews can still be useful when:
Even then, annual-only is the risky part.
Continuous performance management is usually the better default when:
This aligns with what many organizations have been trying to do globally. Harvard Business Review has documented companies moving away from traditional annual appraisal approaches toward more frequent feedback and simplified systems.
If you want something that works in a Lagos fintech, a Nairobi logistics company, a Ghanaian retail chain, or a multi-country NGO, start here:
This gives you speed without chaos.
This is designed for real constraints. Limited time. Mixed manager quality. KPIs that are still settling.
Pick one primary purpose for the first 30 days:
Do not try to fix compensation politics and culture issues in month one. You can get there, but start smaller.
Choose 3–5 key roles first (sales, operations, customer success, finance, engineering).
For each role, write:
Example for a customer support lead:
Keep it observable. Keep it short.
If you use OKRs, keep them realistic. If you do not have OKRs yet, do not force the label. Use outcomes.
This is where a tool can reduce friction. Talstack’s Goals feature is built for setting and aligning goals at company, department, and individual level, with progress tracking that does not live in a spreadsheet.
Your check-in agenda can be four questions:
That’s it.
No long forms.
Create an “evidence log” per employee with three buckets:
This makes quarterly and annual decisions fairer.
If documentation is your weak point, a central place helps. Talstack’s Performance Reviews module is designed to run structured review cycles with goal context and feedback in one place, instead of scattered files.
This is the longer conversation.
Agenda:
Then connect development to real learning.
A practical approach:
Talstack’s Learning Paths and Assign Courses features are built for that “skill gap to training” link, so development is not just a nice sentence in a PDF.
If your company needs an annual cycle for budgeting and compensation, keep it.
But make it a summary, not a memory test.
Your annual decision should pull from:
Track three simple metrics:
If you want to make this visible without manual reporting, analytics helps. Talstack’s Analytics is intended to show progress, engagement, response rates, and outcomes across performance and learning.
“I want this to be quick and useful. What moved since we last spoke, what’s blocked, and what support do you need from me before the next check-in?”
“I’m going to share what I observed, the impact, and what I want to see next.
This week, the handoff notes were missing twice. It slowed delivery and created rework. Next week, I need handoff notes sent same day, even if they’re short. What’s making that hard right now?”
“Here’s what I’m taking from this quarter: your strongest area is ____. The one gap we should address next is ____. Next quarter’s goal is ____. The development action we’ll do in the next 30 days is ____.”
“We’re moving to a lighter monthly check-in rhythm so feedback is timely and expectations are clearer. The annual summary stays, but it will be based on the year’s check-ins and evidence, not memory.”
Continuous feedback is a piece of it. Continuous performance management also includes goal clarity, coaching rhythm, and documentation so decisions are fair.
Often, yes. Many teams keep an annual summary for compensation, compliance, and reporting, but the content comes from the year’s evidence and conversations.
Start with outcomes and observable behaviors. Tighten KPIs over time. If you wait for perfect KPIs, you’ll keep the annual scramble.
They will if the manager uses them to police tasks. Keep them focused on outcomes, blockers, and support. Fifteen minutes. Notes, not surveillance.
For most teams: monthly check-ins, quarterly growth reviews, and an annual summary. Adjust for role type.
Use 360 feedback for leadership and cross-functional roles where peers observe important behaviors. Do not use it as a weapon or a gossip channel.
Track adoption (check-ins completed), quality (evidence attached), and impact (development actions completed, performance drift reduced). Gallup and Deloitte both emphasize that feedback and clarity influence engagement and outcomes, but you still need internal measurement to know it’s real in your context.
Pick one department and run the hybrid model for 30 days: define 4–6 outcomes per role, do weekly evidence capture, hold 15-minute monthly check-ins, and run one quarterly growth review. Then tighten based on what managers actually did, not what the policy says.
.png)
.png)
