How to Prepare for Your Annual Performance Review

Abstract

This article is about how to prepare for your annual performance review, and what research can say about it. Three pieces of research bear on it. A meta-analysis of 27 studies (Cawley, Keeping and Levy, 1998) found that taking part in the appraisal went with more favourable reactions to it, and that having a voice mattered more than influencing the outcome. A conceptual paper (London and Smither, 2002) describes feedback orientation, a person's receptiveness to feedback. A meta-analysis (Anseel and colleagues, 2015) looked at what goes with asking for feedback, and found that uncertainty went with seeking less of it. None of these studied finance staff. The three steps at the end are practical readings, not tested methods, and this article is not medical advice.

The invitation that arrives in the last quarter

The invitation arrives in early October: "Annual review, 45 minutes." You have not been given the template yet, and you have not thought about it since the summer.

You know how it will go. Your manager will talk, you will nod, and you will think of what you meant to say on the way home. This time you want to prepare for your annual performance review so that the forty-five minutes are not just a verdict.

How to prepare for your annual performance review: what is the evidence?

The research cited here does not say what a good review looks like. It covers a meta-analysis of taking part in the appraisal, a conceptual account of how receptive people are to feedback, and a meta-analysis of what goes with asking for it. These studies were not limited to finance, and two of the three are reviews of other studies. The next three sections cover what each one found. None of them tested the three steps at the end.

What a meta-analysis of taking part in appraisals found

Cawley, Keeping and Levy (1998) combined 27 studies, with 32 samples, of employee participation in performance appraisal. They looked at how taking part related to how employees reacted to the appraisal.

Participation went with more favourable reactions. The corrected correlation reached .61, with the strongest link to satisfaction. Value-expressive participation, which means having a voice, was related more strongly to most reactions than instrumental participation, which means having influence over the outcome. This is summarised from the published abstract.

Read your preparation through this. People who felt they had a say in the appraisal reacted more favourably to it, and having a voice mattered more than having influence. This is an inference. The studies were correlational, and the abstract does not show that preparing causes satisfaction.

What a conceptual paper on feedback orientation proposes

London and Smither (2002) wrote a conceptual paper, which means it proposes ideas and does not report a new data set. They describe feedback orientation as a person's receptivity to feedback. It includes comfort with feedback, seeking and mindfully processing it, and acting on it.

They also discuss feedback culture, the shared norms around giving and using feedback, and a longitudinal view of performance management as a process and not a single meeting. This is summarised from the published abstract.

Read your own habits through this. How you take in feedback is a pattern with parts you can look at, such as comfort, seeking, processing and acting. This is an inference. This is a framework, so it was not tested in the paper, and the abstract does not say that receptivity can be trained.

What a meta-analysis of feedback seeking found

Anseel, Beatty, Shen, Lievens and Sackett (2015) combined studies of why and when people ask for feedback. Learning and performance goal orientation, frequent positive feedback, self-esteem and high-quality relationships went with more feedback seeking.

Uncertainty was related negatively to feedback seeking. The relationship between feedback seeking and performance was small. The abstract gives no sample counts or figures. This is summarised from the published abstract.

Read the weeks before your review through this. People ask for more feedback when they have good relationships and receive positive feedback, and less when they feel uncertain. This is an inference. Asking for feedback went with only a small gain in performance, so it is not a guaranteed route to a better review.

How to prepare for your annual performance review: three steps

None of these is a tested method, and none was studied in finance teams. They combine what the research points to with ordinary practice. Where a step goes beyond the research, it says so.

1. Write your own account before the meeting. Having a voice went with more favourable reactions, so arrive with something to say. Three results, one thing that did not go well and what you learned from it, and one request. This is a judgement, and no study cited here tested this step. For instance: "Results: the audit closed without findings. Miss: the forecast slipped in July. Request: sit in on the planning round."

2. Ask one specific question about the year ahead. Uncertainty went with seeking less feedback, so a precise question can lower it. Choose the one thing you most want to know. This is a judgement, and no study cited here tested this step. For instance: "Which one change would matter most to you next year?"

3. Decide in advance how you will take in what you hear. Receptivity includes comfort, mindful processing and acting. In the room, note the points instead of answering each one, and ask for a day to respond. This is a judgement, and no study cited here tested this step. For instance: "Thank you, I want to think about that. Can I come back to you on Thursday?"

If criticism stays with you afterwards, How to Stop Replaying Criticism From Your Boss goes into that. For comments that land too hard, there is How to Stop Taking Things Personally at Work. When your numbers are challenged in the room, see How to Respond When Your Numbers Are Questioned. If a review always seems to find fault, Perfectionism at Work: When High Standards Start to Cost You looks at that. And How to Give Feedback to an Employee Who Gets Defensive is the manager's side.

Questions People Ask

Should I ask for the review criteria in advance?

The studies cited here did not test that. Having a voice in the appraisal went with more favourable reactions, and knowing the criteria is a way to prepare what to say. It is a judgement, and an easy question to ask.

What if my manager does not give me space to speak?

The participation meta-analysis suggests that having a voice matters, but it does not say what to do when the meeting is one-way. You can ask for a short written response afterwards. That is a judgement, not a research finding.

Is it worth asking for feedback before the review?

In the meta-analysis, asking for feedback went with only a small gain in performance. That does not mean it is useless, but it does mean the studies do not promise that asking early will change your rating.

Can coaching help me prepare?

Coaching is educational support for work patterns. It can help you plan what to say and notice how you react to feedback. It is not treatment. No study cited here tested coaching.

When it is more than a stressful meeting

A stressful meeting is one thing. It is more when you feel numb, persistently low or anxious, when you cannot sleep before reviews, or when you notice physical symptoms. In those cases talk to your doctor, your occupational health service or a qualified mental health professional. If you think a review was unfair or discriminatory, talk to HR, your union or an employment adviser. This article is not medical or legal advice. Coaching is educational support for work patterns. It is not treatment and not a substitute for it.

Sources

• Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 615–633. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.615 (Summarised from the published abstract.)

• London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12(1), 81–100. DOI: 10.1016/S1053-4822(01)00043-2 (Summarised from the published abstract.)

• Anseel, F., Beatty, A. S., Shen, W., Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). How are we doing after 30 years? A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and outcomes of feedback-seeking behavior. Journal of Management, 41(1), 318–348. DOI: 10.1177/0149206313484521 (Summarised from the published abstract.)