Why performance reviews fail in Africa: bias, unclear goals, weak manager habits, and poor data. Here’s a practical fix you can run in 30 days.
Marketing Lead
•
Have you ever been in this situation? It's performance review season, and your laptop fan sounds like a small generator.
Not because of “strategy.” But because you have 14 performance reviews due by Friday, your laptop is working so hard, three managers chasing you on WhatsApp, and a spreadsheet with the tab named “Final-Final-2.”
In the middle of the night, you catch yourself trying to score someone’s “collaboration” based on two meetings you can barely remember.
That’s the moment you’ll start realizing that the process is not neutral.
Performance reviews fail for predictable reasons. The good news is that you can fix them without buying a complicated system or forcing managers to write essays.
Performance review is a structured conversation (plus documentation) meant to assess outcomes, improve performance, and support decisions like pay, promotion, or development.
That’s the ideal.
In real teams, the review becomes a stressful, end-of-year event where everyone acts like they have perfect memory, perfect metrics, and zero politics. The system collapses under normal human behavior.
A lot of global organizations have admitted the traditional approach is out of step with how work actually happens. Deloitte’s work on performance management redesign is one of the best-known examples of this shift toward frequent check-ins and coaching.
Even when nobody is shouting, the process leaks money and trust:
And the worst part is that many teams do all that effort and still do not get better performance out of it. That mismatch is exactly why so many companies have tried to reinvent or reduce annual ratings.
I’ll keep this grounded in what HR leaders and ops managers in Africa typically deal with: fast growth, role ambiguity, uneven manager capability, documentation gaps, and real constraints around time and systems.
If you cannot answer “what does good look like in this role?” in a few sentences, your review will become vibes.
Common signs:
Constraint acknowledgment #1: in many African companies, roles evolve quickly. People wear multiple hats. That’s normal. But your review must reflect it or it turns into opinion.
Annual reviews force managers to summarize a year of work in one conversation. Humans cannot do that fairly.
You get:
There’s good research showing feedback interventions can help performance, but also that feedback can backfire depending on how it’s delivered and what it focuses on.
To put it simply, feedback is powerful, and sloppy feedback can do damage.
Bias is not a moral insult. It’s a design problem. If your system assumes people rate perfectly, your system is fragile.
Bias patterns that show up in reviews:
Culture Amp’s bias breakdown is a practical overview HR teams often use to train managers.
For example, in higher power-distance contexts (common across many workplaces), employees may avoid challenging feedback or self-advocacy. Reviews then reward confidence, not competence.
If the review process lives in spreadsheets and email threads, you lose evidence.
What happens:
This is not about “digitization” as a buzzword. It’s about making evidence easy to capture while the work is fresh.
Many managers in growing organizations were promoted for competence, not for coaching ability.
So the review becomes:
Performance management should shift toward coaching and frequent conversations.
Another thing to note is that managers are overloaded. If your fix requires them to double their admin work, it will fail. The workflow has to be lighter than what you have now.
Calibration can be useful, but in many companies it turns into:
When that happens, employees quickly learn the rating is about budget, not merit.
This is the quiet killer.
People do a review, sign a form, and go right back to the same skill gaps.
In South Africa, research has examined how managerial competencies and appraisal practices relate to SME performance, reinforcing the idea that capability and the quality of management practices matter, not just the existence of a process.
If reviews do not lead to training, coaching, or role clarity, you are running a ceremony.
A strong performance system has three characteristics:
In many African companies, compensation is tightly linked to reviews. You may not be able to separate pay from performance conversations completely.
But you can separate the inputs.
A practical approach:
If your organization is between 30 and 1,000 employees, this structure tends to hold up:
360 feedback can be excellent for:
It can backfire when:
So treat 360 as a development tool first, not a courtroom.
This is designed for your constraints: unclear KPIs, busy managers, and imperfect systems.
Pick one primary objective:
If you try to optimize for all four in one form, you’ll get none.
Write the objective at the top of the review doc. It sounds small. It changes behavior.
Do this for your highest-impact roles first (sales, operations, customer support, engineering, finance).
For each role, define:
Example (Operations Lead):
If your KPIs are unclear, start with outcomes and proxy measures. You can tighten later.
Monthly beats quarterly when your environment changes fast.
Agenda:
Keep notes. Short notes win.
Create an “evidence log” for each employee:
This is where many reviews become fair.
Talstack’s Performance Reviews module and Goals feature are built for this exact “evidence over memory” problem, especially when you’re trying to escape spreadsheet chaos. You define goals, collect self/peer/manager feedback, and see progress without hunting through email threads.
Do three things:
Also, train managers on common biases.
Every review should end with:
Then attach learning.
This is where platforms help, but you can do it manually too:
If you want to operationalize this, Talstack’s Learning Paths and Assign Courses features make it easier to connect “review feedback” to “training that closes the gap,” then actually track completion and improvement over time.
Pick 3 metrics:
Talstack’s Analytics capability is designed for exactly this kind of visibility: response rates, goal attainment, learning engagement, completion. When you measure it, the process stays alive.
“Quick check-in. I want to make sure you’re clear on priorities and you’re not blocked. What did you move forward since our last chat, and what’s stuck?”
“I’m going to describe what I observed, the impact, and what I want to see next.
In the last two weeks, the client handoff notes were missing in three cases. It slowed delivery and created rework. Next month, I need handoff notes submitted same day, even if they’re short. What’s making that hard right now?”
“For your self-review, list: (1) your top 3 outcomes with evidence, (2) one challenge you handled, (3) one skill you want to build next quarter.”
“We’re going to talk about growth and performance today. Compensation decisions are handled in the next step with leadership after calibration. I’ll share the outcome and the rationale when it’s finalized.”
“Here’s what I’m taking from this: your strength is ____. Your main growth area is ____. Next quarter, we’ll focus on ____. By next Friday, let’s agree on one goal and one learning action.”
Because KPIs alone don’t solve bias, missing evidence, and weak manager coaching habits. Also, many KPIs are lagging or team-based, so individuals get judged on outcomes they didn’t fully control. Add evidence logs and short check-ins to make KPIs usable.
Not always. Some organizations function better with ratings for pay and promotion decisions. The bigger issue is rating design and usage. If you keep ratings, require evidence and separate development conversations from compensation decisions where possible.
If priorities shift monthly, do monthly check-ins and quarterly reviews. Annual-only reviews are usually too slow for fast-changing environments and amplify recency bias.
Two rules: use behavioral anchors, and require evidence for every rating. Then do a short calibration for outliers only. Bias education helps, but design changes help more.
They can, but only when trust is present and anonymity is protected. Start with development-only 360 feedback for managers and leaders, then expand slowly.
They don’t. That’s why the fix is short check-ins and lightweight notes, not longer forms. If your new system adds admin work, it will fail. Make the process lighter than what you have now.
Use internal SOPs, peer coaching, small project assignments, and a short curated course list. A structured learning path beats a big library nobody uses. Research on training and performance in African public sector contexts also reinforces the need for structured approaches, not ad hoc learning.
Track three things: completion rate, evidence quality, and follow-through on development actions. If those improve, fairness and performance usually improve next.
Pick one department and run the 30-day fix as a pilot: rewrite role outcomes, start monthly check-ins, and enforce evidence-based ratings. After 30 days, keep what worked and tighten what didn’t.
.png)
.png)
