Best Coaching Practices for Performance Reviews

Performance reviews often leave people deflated. But the ones that inspire? They focus on potential, not just performance. Here’s how to create those conversations: 1 / Be specific about what you observed Use the SBI model to share it clearly. → Situation: When and where it happened → Behavior: What you observed, not your interpretation → Impact: How it affected the team or results 2 / Challenge them because you care Radical Candor isn’t about being nice or tough.  It’s about doing both. → Make criticism immediate and specific → Show you care about their growth → Praise publicly, critique privately 3 / Use language that opens doors The words you choose shape how people receive feedback. → “You’re not good at this” shuts people down → “You haven’t mastered this yet” creates possibility → That one word — yet — shifts everything 4 / Don’t hide feedback between compliments People remember the start and end better than the middle. → Give praise when you mean it → Give constructive criticism when it’s needed → Keep them separate 5 / Focus on where they’re going When the conversation is about the future, it motivates. → What would success look like for you? → What support do you need to get there? → What skills do you want to develop? 6 / Ask for their perspective too Performance reviews shouldn’t be one-sided. → Have them complete a self-assessment first → Compare notes together in the meeting → They often already know what needs to improve Performance reviews don’t have to be dreaded. Your team wants honest feedback. They just want it delivered in a way that sees their potential, not just their mistakes. ♻️ If this resonates, repost for your network. 📌 Follow Amy Gibson for more leadership insights.

Performance reviews shouldn’t feel like a surprise attack. They should build trust. Clarify expectations. Support growth. But too often? They leave people confused or deflated. It doesn’t have to be that way. Here’s what happens when emotionally intelligent leaders get it right 👇 It’s a two-way conversation, not a monologue ↳ One-sided reviews undermine trust and overlook valuable insights. ❌ Avoid saying: “Here’s how you did this year...” ✔️ Consider saying: “Before I share my feedback, I’d love to hear your thoughts on how this year went—the wins and the challenges.” It starts with strengths, highlighting achievements ↳ Emphasizing strengths fosters safety and enhances openness to feedback. ❌ Avoid saying: “First, let’s address the areas needing improvement. ” ✔️ Consider saying: “Let’s begin with what’s working. You’ve had a strong impact in [XYZ area].” It names emotions without making it personal ↳ Emotions are important, but feedback concentrates on behaviors, not character. ❌ Avoid saying: “You were quite challenging to collaborate with on this project.” ✔️Consider saying: “There were a few moments that caused frustration for the team—can we discuss how we might approach that differently together?” It balances necessary candor with care ↳ Candor fosters personal growth, while care encourages openness to embrace that growth. ❌ Avoid saying: “This is probably not a strength of yours.” ✔️ Consider saying: “This area fell short of expectations, and I know you can achieve more. Let’s discuss what would assist us moving forward.” It includes future-forward coaching ↳ Reviews should focus on growth rather than merely reviewing the past. ❌ Avoid saying: “There’s not much more to say. I think you know where I stand on your performance. Let’s see how the next quarter goes.” ✔️Consider saying: “Let’s discuss what’s next—what goals you’re excited about and how I can support your development.” It reflects active listening for deeper understanding ↳ People share more when they feel understood ❌ Avoid saying: “I already know how you’re going to respond—we don’t need to rehash that.” ✔️Consider saying: “Can you share more about your experience with the [XYZ] project? I want to ensure I’m not overlooking anything.” It ends with alignment and encouragement ↳ The conclusion of a review should create clarity and momentum, not confusion or hesitation. ❌ Avoid saying: “I suppose you should just keep working on it.” ✔️Consider saying: “I feel like we are on the same page, and I’m committed to supporting you at every turn." ✨ That’s the kind of review that builds trust, ownership, and momentum. What’s a phrase you’ve heard—or used—that made a performance review feel like a real conversation? Drop it in the comments 👇 *** ♻️ Re-post or share so others can lead more effectively 🔔 Turn on notifications for my latest posts 🤓 Follow me at Scott J. Allen, Ph.D. for daily content on leadership 📌 Design by Bela Jevtovic

If your feedback isn't changing behavior, you're not giving feedback—you're just complaining. After 25 years of coaching leaders through difficult conversations, I've learned that most feedback fails because it focuses on making the giver feel better rather than making the receiver better. Why most feedback doesn't work: ↳ It's delivered months after the fact ↳ It attacks personality instead of addressing behavior ↳ It assumes the person knows what to do differently ↳ It's given when emotions are high ↳ It lacks specific examples or clear direction The feedback framework that actually changes behavior: TIMING: Soon, not eventually. Give feedback within 48 hours when possible Don't save it all for annual reviews. Address issues while they're still relevant. INTENT: Lead with purpose and use statements like - "I'm sharing this because I want to see you succeed" or "This feedback comes from a place of support." Make your positive intent explicit. STRUCTURE: Use the SBI Model. ↳Situation: When and where it happened ↳Behavior: What you observed (facts, not interpretations) ↳Impact: The effect on results, relationships, or culture COLLABORATION: Solve together by using statements such as - ↳"What's your perspective on this?" ↳"What would help you succeed in this area?" ↳"How can I better support you moving forward?" Great feedback is a gift that keeps giving. When people trust your feedback, they seek it out. When they implement it successfully, they become advocates for your leadership. Your feedback skills significantly impact your leadership effectiveness. Coaching can help; let's chat. | Joshua Miller What's the best feedback tip/advice, and what made it effective? #executivecoaching #communication #leadership #performance

Your reps don't need a cheerleader. They need a coach who actually helps them improve. Here's what most managers get wrong: They think leadership is about motivation. "Great job team!" "Keep pushing!" "You got this!" Meanwhile, their reps are drowning. Not from lack of motivation — from lack of SKILL. I learned this the hard way. Early in my career, I was all energy. All hype. All "let's gooooo!" My team meetings? Pure Tony Robbins. My Slack? GIF city. My 1:1s? Pep talks on steroids. And my team's performance? Mediocre at best. Then I spoke with an early mentor, they ran a 1x1 for me. and my mind was blown. No fluff. No ra-ra. Just: "Stop. Why did you ask that question?" "What was their response telling you?" "How could you have dug deeper?" "Let's practice that transition again." His team? Crushing quota while mine struggled. That's when it clicked. The Cheerleader vs Coach Reality: Cheerleaders say: "You're doing great!" Coaches say: "Here's what I noticed at minute 14:32..." Cheerleaders say: "I believe in you!" Coaches say: "Show me how you'd handle that objection." Cheerleaders say: "Next time will be better!" Coaches say: "Let's diagnose why this happened and fix it now." Here's what real coaching looks like: 📞 Call Reviews That Matter Not "good call" — but timestamp-specific feedback "At 8:47 when they mentioned budget, you moved on. Let's unpack why." 🎯 Pattern Recognition Not "work harder" — but identifying the real gaps "I've noticed you lose deals at the 45-day mark. Here's what's happening..." 🔄 Live Practice Not "you'll figure it out" — but reps in a safe environment "That objection killed you. Let's run it 5 times right now until it's natural." 📊 Data-Driven Development Not "trust the process" — but showing them their numbers "Your discovery-to-demo conversion is 23%. Top performers are at 67%. Here's the difference..." The Hard Truth: Your reps don't need another "attaboy." They need someone who will: -Listen to their calls at 2x speed before your 1:1 -Role-play until they nail it -Call out their blind spots (with love) -Show them exactly HOW to improve THEN - Hit them with a well earned, deserved and intentional 'Great job, I believe in you, you got this. - THAT's when it matters and truly drives impact. Is this harder? - Yep. Is it worth it? - Absolutely.

Managers often resist performance appraisals—not just because they’re uncomfortable, but because deep down, they feel uneasy about passing judgment on another person’s worth. This insight, drawn from a 1972 Harvard Business Review article, remains just as relevant today. Douglas McGregor argued that traditional performance evaluations put too much power in the hands of managers while treating employees as passive subjects rather than active participants in their own growth. Instead, he advocated for a shift: let employees set their own performance goals, reflect on their progress, and work collaboratively with their manager to course-correct. This approach was groundbreaking then, and it still challenges the way many organizations operate. Despite decades of leadership development, many companies continue to rely on top-down, judgment-heavy appraisals rather than empowering employees to take ownership of their growth. The world looks different today—more remote work, shifting employee expectations, and a stronger focus on autonomy—but the core truth remains: people perform better when they have agency over their own development. Three takeaways for leaders today: (1) Turn Appraisals into Coaching Conversations Instead of judging past performance, help employees define clear, meaningful goals and guide them forward. (2) Shift from Evaluation to Self-Reflection Encourage employees to assess their own progress first. They often hold themselves to a higher standard than managers do. (3) Recognize That People Aren’t Products Performance reviews aren’t about "quality control." Employees aren’t widgets on an assembly line—they are individuals with evolving skills, aspirations, and challenges. McGregor’s ideas may have been ahead of their time, but they still hold a mirror up to how we manage talent today. If leaders want engaged, high-performing teams, they need to stop controlling and start empowering. How do you approach performance conversations in your organization? #performance #collaboration #coaching #teams #leadership #learning #growth #reflection #management #managers #conversations https://lnkd.in/e_tk9_DB

Mid-senior engineers: Your performance review is not an evaluation. It is a negotiation. And most engineers walk in unprepared to negotiate. I have coached engineers through hundreds of review cycles. The ones who walk out with promotions, raises, and expanded scope do not work harder than everyone else. They prepare differently. Here is the difference: 𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟭. 𝗔𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆 Most engineers list what they did. High performers show what changed because of what they did. Weak: "Built a recommendation engine using collaborative filtering." Strong: "Reduced load time by 40%, unblocking the Q3 release and saving two weeks of engineering time." One sounds like execution. The other sounds like leadership. 𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟮. 𝗜𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 Not your busiest moments. Your highest-impact ones. These become the anchor points of every performance conversation you will have. Your manager remembers what you remind them of. You get to choose what that is. 𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟯. 𝗡𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗴𝗮𝗽𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗲𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 Every engineer has development areas. The question is who frames them first. Weak: Being told "you need to improve your cross-functional communication." Strong: "I have been intentionally building my cross-functional communication skills this quarter, and here is what I have done." One puts you on the defensive. The other puts you in control. 𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟰. 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 A performance review is not a report card. It is your best opportunity to shape the conversation about your next level. Engineers who arrive with a clear ask get considered for it. Engineers who wait to be offered it rarely are. 𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟱. 𝗪𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 One page. Impact, strongest moments, growth areas, and your ask. Send it to your manager before the meeting. This forces the conversation to start from your framing, not theirs. The engineers who control the narrative going in almost always walk out with a better outcome. The engineers who get promoted are not always the ones who did the most. They are the ones who made sure the right people knew exactly what they did. Save this before your next review cycle. If you are preparing for a promotion conversation and want to make sure you walk in ready, message me.

Lots of managers are giving performance reviews right now. Most are wasting everyone's time. Why? Because they're giving feedback like: "Be more proactive" "Show more leadership" "Improve your communication" "Take more initiative" That kind of feedback sounds helpful, but it usually just leaves people frustrated. ❌ It tells people they're falling short without showing them how to improve. ❌ It creates anxiety without providing direction. ❌ It wastes the single best opportunity to drive real change. There's a better way. Every piece of feedback needs three elements: 1. Specific situation 2. Observable behavior 3. Clear impact The feedback formula: "When [situation], do [behavior] to achieve [impact]." Vague vs Specific: ❌ "Be more proactive" ✅ "When you spot potential issues, raise them immediately in our daily standup so we can address them before they impact deadlines." ❌ "Improve your communication" ✅ "When you have project updates, share them in our team channel within 2 hours so everyone stays aligned without extra meetings." ❌ "Show more leadership" ✅ "When in meetings, actively ask for input from quiet team members so we get diverse perspectives." Strong feedback always answers: ↳ What exactly needs to change? ↳ What does success look like? ↳ How will it impact others? Your team can't read your mind. Don't let another review cycle pass with feedback that sounds good but changes nothing. ♻️ Repost to help other leaders give better feedback 🔔 Follow LK Pryzant for more practical leadership insights 📌 Subscribe to my newsletter: https://lnkd.in/gcQ59XXS

"Unless you're Jesus-actual-Christ, you'll never get a '5' on your performance review." Those are actual words spoken to me by a former boss. Tell me if any of this sounds familiar… You walk into your performance review a little nervous. Not because you’ve been underperforming, but because you’ve barely heard a word about your performance all year. You assume this means you've been doing a great job. Otherwise, they'd tell you...right? Your manager shuffles papers. They seem stressed and distracted. No eye contact as they slide a form across the table. You skip the narrative to jump to the number: You've been rated a 3. “Three is good,” they say. “Three means you’re meeting expectations.” Except it’s a 5-point scale. And something about being told you’re “good” feels… not great. Especially when you’re then told 5 is ‘unattainable.’ You know being rated a 1 or 2 means going on a performance plan. So now the whole system feels like a trap: 1 = trouble 2 = still trouble 3 = “you’re fine, I guess” 4 = actually seen as a good employee 5 = mythological The conversation wraps in 12 minutes. You get a vague “keep up the good work.” No specifics. No examples. No coaching. Just a number on a page and a tight smile. You can tell they rushed it. You can tell they’re overwhelmed. And you can definitely tell the process was built for compliance, not growth. If any of this hits a nerve, you’re not alone. This is exactly what’s broken about so many performance review processes right now. Here’s actual steps I follow when giving performance reviews and simple fixes I suggest for nearly every team: 1. Co-create the review. Start with self-reflection. Let the employee share wins, challenges, and priorities. Make it a conversation, not a verdict. 2. Set (and reset) goals that are actually clear. Not poetic, not vague. Crystal clear. And define how success is measured so no one is guessing in Q4. 3. Talk throughout the year. Quarterly check-ins, monthly touchpoints — something. Nobody should walk into a review unsure of what they’ll hear. 4. Send the review in advance. Give people time to read, reflect, and prepare. Ambush reviews help no one. 5. Focus on what you can do as the manager. Support, unblock, guide. Growth doesn’t happen by telling someone to “work harder.” It happens when expectations and support rise together. 6. Co-create the commitments coming out of the meeting. What will we do next quarter? What does success look like? What will we each do to get there? A great performance conversation requires clarity. It requires cadence. It requires shared ownership — theirs AND yours. And it requires treating the review as a moment to move forward, not a moment to pass judgment. If you want high performance, you have to build a process that helps people actually perform.

Most performance reviews try to do two jobs at once: 1️⃣ Pick between people for pay, promotion, and roles. 2️⃣ Develop people by finding strengths and gaps. These goals pull in opposite directions. Why this clash happens (brain + math): 🧠 Brain: When a review affects your pay or job, your brain reads it as a threat. Stress goes up. Learning shuts down. Feedback feels like a warning, not help. 🔢 Math: If you focus on ranking people clearly, everyone’s profile looks the same and you lose detail about strengths and weaknesses. If you focus on rich, detailed feedback, clear rankings get fuzzy. You can’t optimize both at the same time. The fix isn’t “blend them better.” You need a third way. Build two separate tracks with different goals, timing, and rules. Track A — Allocate (between people) - Purpose: pay, promotion, role, and staffing decisions. - Timing: set times (e.g., twice a year). - Evidence: common criteria and comparisons across people. - Norms: fairness, consistency, clear documentation. Track B — Develop (within people) - Purpose: growth, new skills, behavior change. - Timing: ongoing, low‑stakes coaching in regular 1:1s. - Evidence: specific behaviors and goals; focus on the future (“feedforward”). - Norms: psychological safety, curiosity, experimentation. Design moves that make it work: 👉 Separate the moments: Never mix ratings or money talks with coaching time. 👉 Separate the artifacts: Use different forms and language for each track. 👉 Separate the roles: Talent review leaders handle Track A; managers/peers coach in Track B. 👉 Give employees a voice: Enable upward feedback and self‑nominations for growth or promotion. 👉 Aim at behavior and the future: Be specific about what to try next, not who someone “is.” Employee gut‑check: “Is this feedback or a warning?” If people can’t tell, the system isn’t truly separate yet. When we honor the polarity—allocate separately, develop safely—performance management can actually serve both business goals. #EmployeeExperience #PerformanceManagement #Leadership #HR

Annual performance reviews are essential. But only if they're designed to help people succeed. Over the years, I've conducted dozens of annual reviews. I always tried to give honest, constructive feedback that would help each person grow in their role. Sometimes I would get the call from senior management. "Can you adjust some of those ratings?" I had already submitted my evaluations. My team had earned those ratings through real work and real results. But the real reason wasn't about performance. It was budget math. Too many "Exceeds Expectations" ratings meant too much money. They needed me to downgrade some to "Meets Expectations" to keep costs down. I wasn't happy about it. These weren't just numbers on a spreadsheet; they represented honest conversations about growth, contributions, and potential. This isn't a sound system. Managers need to give honest feedback even if that means 5 "Exceeds" ratings and 2 "Needs Development." Period. Your people can smell dishonesty from a mile away. Here are 5 ways organizations can fix their review process without sacrificing integrity: 1️⃣ Separate Performance from Pay Decisions ✅ Rate performance based on actual results and behaviors ✅ Make compensation decisions separately with transparent budget criteria ➡️ Action: Create two distinct processes with different timelines 2️⃣ Set Budget Parameters Upfront ✅ Establish clear compensation pools before reviews begin ✅ Communicate budget realities to managers early in the process ➡️ Action: Share budget guidelines during manager training, not after ratings are submitted 3️⃣ Use Calibration Sessions for Consistency, Not Cost-Cutting ✅ Focus calibration on ensuring fair, consistent standards across teams ✅ Never use these sessions to artificially lower ratings for budget reasons ➡️ Action: Train facilitators to identify and address budget-driven rating pressure 4️⃣ Make Development Conversations Year-Round ✅ Quarterly check-ins should be the norm, not the exception ✅ Document growth and coaching throughout the year ➡️ Action: Require managers to log at least one development conversation monthly 5️⃣ Build Rating Integrity Standards ✅ Create clear criteria that prevent arbitrary rating changes ✅ Require written justification for any post-submission modifications ➡️ Action: Implement a rating change approval process with HR oversight When we manipulate performance ratings for budget reasons, we destroy trust faster than any failed project ever could. Your people deserve honest feedback. Even when it costs more. If you’re leading a team and want to rebuild trust in your review process, my Chaos to Clarity session helps managers redesign feedback systems that actually work. 💬 Message me “Clarity” for details. 💾 Save this if you've ever been asked to "adjust" ratings for the wrong reasons. 👣 Follow Rene Madden for more strategies on leading with integrity.