The template
Six sections for a 75-minute performance review
Open and frame (5 min)
Restate the purpose of the meeting: review of the past period, alignment on rating, and planning for the next period. Confirm the employee has read the pre-shared rating and self-assessment. Acknowledge that performance reviews are difficult conversations and commit to making this one productive. The five-minute open matters because the emotional weight of the meeting needs space; diving straight into ratings produces defensive responses.
Employee self-assessment first (15 min)
Employee shares their own assessment of the period: what they're proudest of, where they feel they fell short, what changed compared to their expectations. Manager listens without interjecting. Notes for later but does not respond yet. The self-first order matters because hearing the manager first anchors the employee's reflection on what the manager said rather than what they actually think. The Adobe Check-In research showed that self-first reviews produced significantly more honest self-assessment than manager-first reviews.
Manager feedback using SBI (25 min)
Manager shares 3-5 specific examples of strong performance and 2-3 specific examples of growth areas, each structured as Situation, Behaviour, Impact. Concrete examples replace abstract characterisations: 'In the Q2 customer review, when the legal pushback came in, you redirected the conversation to the original problem and unblocked the deal within two days. The customer signed a 30% larger contract than originally scoped.' Avoid: 'You handle pressure well.' SBI structure makes feedback specific enough to act on and removes the inferential leap that triggers defensiveness.
Rating discussion (15 min)
Walk through each rated competency or goal area, the rating, and the reasoning. The rating should not be a surprise (pre-shared 48-72 hours before the meeting). This section discusses any rating the employee questions, with specific examples. The manager listens to disagreement seriously and adjusts if the employee surfaces evidence that wasn't considered, but does not back down from ratings supported by evidence. The discussion produces a shared understanding of how each rating was reached, even if disagreement remains.
Development planning (10 min)
Forward-looking discussion: what skills or experiences does the employee want to develop over the next period, what stretch assignments or learning resources support that, what role does the manager need to play to make development happen. Captures in an Individual Development Plan (IDP) document. Development planning often gets cut for time in performance reviews; protecting these ten minutes is the difference between a review that documents the past and one that shapes the future. SHRM data: employees with active IDPs are 27% more likely to be in the same role 12 months later (positive retention signal, not negative).
Close and confirm (5 min)
Recap key takeaways: top strength, top growth area, top development goal for next period. Confirm the employee understands the rating and the rationale (not necessarily agrees with every element). Schedule the follow-up check-in (typically 30 days out) to discuss any concerns that surfaced. Document the meeting in the HRIS system within 2 business days; both parties sign or acknowledge electronically.
Pre-work
The 5 hours of pre-work that determine the review
Performance reviews fail more often during preparation than during execution. The five hours of pre-work split roughly: the employee spends 90 minutes on self-assessment; the manager spends 90 minutes on the rating and feedback; HR or the calibration committee spends 60 minutes on the calibration round; pre-share and acknowledgement takes 30 minutes.
The self-assessment should ask the employee to identify 3 strengths, 3 growth areas, 3 things they want to discuss with the manager, and their own initial rating against each competency. Self-ratings that diverge significantly from the manager's rating signal areas where the review conversation needs extra care. The Adobe research found that the largest predictor of review-conversation difficulty was rating divergence at the start; the largest predictor of review-conversation success was self-assessment done seriously.
For the manager, the 90-minute preparation should produce: the rating against each competency (with evidence noted), the 3-5 SBI feedback examples for strengths, the 2-3 SBI examples for growth areas, the top development theme for the next period, and any conversations that have already happened (so they can be referenced rather than relitigated). Skipping the preparation produces "generic feedback" reviews that the employee correctly perceives as phoned in.
Common failure modes
Four failure modes that derail performance reviews
Recency bias
The review weights the last 2 months disproportionately because they are top of mind. Counter: keep a running quarterly journal of strong moments and growth areas; the review draws from the full year, not just the last sprint.
Halo or horns effect
One standout success or one significant failure colours the rating of unrelated competencies. Counter: rate each competency independently with specific evidence; if a competency has no specific evidence, the rating is "not enough data" rather than inferred from other competencies.
Central tendency
The manager rates everyone in the middle to avoid difficult conversations at the top or bottom. Counter: calibration meetings across managers force differentiation and reduce the safety of middle-only rating.
Conflict avoidance
Growth feedback gets softened or omitted to avoid an uncomfortable moment. The employee hears nothing actionable and is then surprised when promotion does not come 12 months later. Counter: structured SBI feedback removes the personal-attack dimension and makes growth feedback easier to deliver and receive.
FAQ
Common questions about performance reviews
How long should a performance review be?
60 to 90 minutes for an annual or mid-year review. Less than 45 minutes signals the review is being rushed or treated as a formality. More than 90 minutes typically means the conversation needed to happen earlier; the review is too late to be the venue for surprises. The 60-minute slot is the median in SHRM's 2024 performance management benchmarks; 90 minutes is more common for managerial roles or where development planning is substantive.
What is the SBI feedback framework?
Situation, Behaviour, Impact. Developed by the Center for Creative Leadership in the 1990s, SBI structures feedback around a specific situation, the observed behaviour in that situation, and the impact the behaviour had on others or the outcome. The framework removes the inferential leap from behaviour to character ('you are unreliable' versus 'in the Q3 launch meeting, you arrived 20 minutes late without notice, and the team had to delay the demo'). SBI feedback is significantly more likely to be received without defensiveness because it stays factual.
Should ratings be discussed during the review or shared in writing first?
Share ratings in writing 48 to 72 hours before the meeting. Surprise ratings during the meeting trigger defensive reactions that derail the rest of the conversation. The Adobe Check-In research (published in HBR, 2018) found that pre-shared ratings produced 31% more productive review conversations because the emotional processing of the rating happened before the meeting, freeing the meeting time for forward-looking discussion.
Should performance reviews still include ratings?
Mixed practice. Companies like Deloitte, Accenture, and GE famously moved away from numerical ratings in the 2010s, replacing them with continuous feedback. The pendulum has partially swung back: SHRM's 2024 survey found 67% of large employers still use ratings, with most pairing ratings with continuous feedback rather than replacing one with the other. The argument for ratings is that they force calibration across managers; the argument against is that they reduce nuanced feedback to a single number.
How do you handle a defensive employee during a review?
Pause the rating discussion and acknowledge the emotional reaction directly: 'I can see this is difficult to hear. Let me give you a moment, and then I want to understand your perspective.' Switch from delivering feedback to listening. Defensive reactions usually subside within 5 to 10 minutes if not pushed against. Avoid debating the rating in the meeting; commit to discussing specific examples afterwards. The Center for Creative Leadership research on difficult feedback conversations identifies acknowledging emotion as the single most-skipped move that distinguishes successful conversations from failed ones.
How is a performance review different from a 1:1?
A 1:1 is the recurring weekly conversation covering current priorities, blockers, and ongoing development. A performance review is a periodic (typically quarterly or annual) formal conversation reflecting on a longer period, documenting performance, and setting goals for the next period. The two should reinforce each other: nothing in the performance review should surprise the employee if 1:1s have been done well. Performance reviews substitute for 1:1s only when 1:1s have not been happening, which is itself the symptom of a larger problem.
Related
Related people-meeting templates
One-on-one meeting
Recurring weekly conversation using the SBI framework. The cadence that prevents review-meeting surprises.
Effective meeting agenda
Five elements every agenda needs, with sources for what works in high-stakes conversations.
30-minute meeting
Format for the 30-day follow-up check-in after the formal performance review.
1-hour meeting
Structure for the 60-minute version of the performance review when the development discussion needs more depth.