12 Common Performance Review Mistakes Managers Make

Managers spend hundreds of hours annually on performance reviews—yet 45% admit their review process brings no real value. The problem isn’t the time invested; it’s the mistakes that undermine the entire process.

When performance reviews go wrong, the consequences ripple across your organization. Less than 30% of employees believe their managers give fair evaluations, and 62% of millennials report feeling blindsided by their reviews. These aren’t just engagement issues—they’re retention risks that cost organizations millions in lost productivity and turnover.

Below are the 12 most common performance review mistakes managers make, backed by research and statistics, plus actionable fixes you can implement immediately.

1. Relying on Recency Bias

The mistake: Managers focus primarily on the past few months—or even weeks—of performance, allowing recent events to overshadow an employee’s work throughout the entire review period.

Why it happens: Without documented evidence from earlier in the year, managers naturally recall recent interactions more vividly than events from 9-10 months ago.

The impact: An employee who struggled in November but excelled from January through September receives an unfairly negative review. Conversely, someone who coasted all year but delivered one strong project in December gets undeserved praise. Recency bias is one of the most common rating errors that compromises review fairness.

The fix: Document performance continuously throughout the review period. Take notes after major projects, significant wins, and areas for improvement as they happen. Review these notes at multiple intervals—quarterly or even monthly—to build a complete picture before the formal review.

2. Failing to Prepare Adequately

The mistake: Managers walk into performance reviews with minimal preparation, relying on memory and gut feeling rather than documented evidence and thoughtful analysis.

Why it happens: Performance reviews get scheduled, but preparation doesn’t. Managers underestimate the time required or prioritize other urgent tasks over review preparation.

The impact: Vague feedback, missed opportunities for meaningful development conversations, and a clear signal to employees that they’re not valued. When managers spend less time preparing for reviews than filling out expense reports, employees notice.

The fix: Block 3-5 hours per direct report for review preparation every six months. Gather data from multiple sources, review documented feedback throughout the year, and prepare specific examples and actionable development plans before the conversation.

3. Giving Vague, Non-Actionable Feedback

The mistake: Managers provide generic feedback like “good job this quarter” or “you need to be more of a team player” without specific examples or clear guidance on what to do differently.

Why it happens: Managers either lack specific examples due to poor documentation or feel uncomfortable giving direct feedback, so they resort to safe, ambiguous language.

The impact: Employees leave the review confused about what they did well, what needs improvement, and how to actually improve. Vague feedback provides zero actionable insights and fails to drive any behavioral change.

The fix: Replace generic statements with specific, behavior-focused examples:

• Instead of “good job on the project,” say “You delivered the Alpha project two weeks ahead of schedule and 15% under budget by proactively identifying resource constraints in week three.”
• Instead of “be better at time management,” say “Try using a daily priority matrix to tackle your highest-impact tasks before 11 AM when interruptions are lowest.”

4. Avoiding Difficult Conversations

The mistake: Managers sugarcoat negative feedback, avoid addressing performance issues directly, or inflate ratings to dodge uncomfortable conversations.

Why it happens: Managers fear hurting feelings, triggering defensiveness, or damaging relationships. Research shows many managers actually believe they’re being more direct than they are.

The impact: 70% of employees regularly avoid difficult workplace conversations, and when managers model this avoidance, it becomes organizational culture. Performance issues fester, employee development stalls, and small problems become termination-level failures.

The fix: Reframe difficult conversations as acts of respect, not unkindness. Being clear about what needs to change gives employees the opportunity to improve. Use the SBI framework (Situation-Behavior-Impact): describe the specific situation, the observable behavior, and the impact it had. “During last week’s client meeting, when you arrived 15 minutes late, the client questioned our professionalism and we lost momentum on the proposal.”

5. Letting the Halo Effect Distort Ratings

The mistake: A manager’s overall positive impression of an employee inflates their ratings across all performance areas, even those where they objectively underperform.

Why it happens: One strong trait—punctuality, charisma, technical expertise—creates a “halo” that makes managers overlook weaknesses in other areas.

The impact: High performers coast in areas where they need development, while managers miss opportunities to help them grow. Meanwhile, employees without a standout “halo trait” get undervalued despite solid all-around performance.

The fix: Evaluate performance across 2-3 distinct dimensions separately—for example, technical execution, collaboration, and communication. Rate each area independently before forming an overall assessment. Ask yourself: “If this person weren’t exceptional at X, how would I rate their performance in Y?“

6. Falling Victim to Central Tendency Bias

The mistake: Managers rate almost everyone as “average” or “meets expectations,” avoiding both excellent and poor ratings regardless of actual performance differences.

Why it happens: Managers fear conflict from giving low ratings, don’t want to justify high ratings, or lack confidence in distinguishing performance levels.

The impact: Top performers feel unrecognized and eventually leave. Poor performers never receive the wake-up call they need to improve. The organization loses its ability to identify and reward excellence or address underperformance.

The fix: Force distribution by asking, “If I could only give one person on my team an ‘exceeds expectations’ rating, who would it be and why?” Use calibration meetings with peer managers to pressure-test your ratings and ensure you’re distinguishing between performance levels.

7. Making It a One-Way Conversation

The mistake: Managers deliver feedback as a monologue, leaving no space for employee input, questions, or self-assessment.

Why it happens: Managers view performance reviews as an evaluation to deliver rather than a conversation to have. They prepare what to say but not what to ask.

The impact: Employees feel talked at rather than valued. A one-sided stream of feedback feels like an attack and prevents meaningful participation. Only 48% of employees find their organization’s performance approach motivating.

The fix: Structure reviews as dialogues. Start by asking employees to share their self-assessment. Use open-ended questions: “What are you most proud of this period?” “Where do you feel you’ve struggled?” “What support do you need from me?” Listen more than you talk—aim for 60% employee voice, 40% manager voice.

8. Comparing Employees to Each Other Instead of Standards

The mistake: Managers evaluate employees by comparing them to peers rather than measuring them against consistent, objective performance standards.

Why it happens: It’s easier to rank employees relatively (“Sarah is better than John”) than to define and apply absolute standards (“Sarah exceeded the criteria for X, Y, and Z”).

The impact: Someone always ends up at the bottom regardless of whether they actually performed poorly. Employees resent being pitted against teammates, and the approach destroys collaboration.

The fix: Establish clear, job-specific performance criteria and competencies before the review cycle begins. Evaluate each employee independently against these standards. If you can’t articulate the standard you’re measuring against, you’re probably comparing people to each other.

9. Focusing Exclusively on Weaknesses

The mistake: Performance reviews become deficit-focused sessions that highlight only what went wrong, what needs improvement, and areas of underperformance.

Why it happens: Managers believe their job is to fix problems, so they zero in on gaps and mistakes while taking strengths for granted.

The impact: Employees feel demoralized and undervalued. When reviews only cover mistakes without acknowledging what was done well, employees become defensive and less receptive to feedback. Research shows recipients of purely negative feedback often doubt both the accuracy of the feedback and the manager’s qualifications to give it.

The fix: Balance criticism with recognition. Research shows that focusing on employee strengths during feedback increases performance by 39%. Start reviews by acknowledging specific accomplishments, then address development areas. The ratio doesn’t need to be forced—just ensure you’re recognizing what’s working, not just what isn’t.

10. Conducting Reviews Only Once a Year

The mistake: Limiting formal performance conversations to an annual event, leaving employees without feedback for 12 months at a time.

Why it happens: Annual reviews are traditional, administratively simpler, and require less frequent manager effort.

The impact: 92% of employees want feedback more than once a year, yet many organizations stick to annual cycles. The result: delayed course correction, accumulated stress, blindsided employees, and disengagement. Major companies like Adobe, GE, and Accenture have abandoned annual reviews entirely.

The fix: Shift to quarterly or biannual formal reviews, supplemented by continuous informal feedback. Regular check-ins allow for timely adjustments and prevent small issues from becoming major problems. Employees who receive weekly feedback are 3.6 times more likely to be engaged at work.

11. Skipping Follow-Up and Action Plans

The mistake: Managers have the performance conversation, document the review, and then move on without creating specific action plans or following up on development goals.

Why it happens: Reviews are seen as endpoints rather than starting points. Once the paperwork is done, managers shift focus back to daily operations.

The impact: 80% of performance problems stem from unclear expectations and goals. Without follow-up, even perfect performance reviews with SMART goals fail to drive improvement. Employees lose motivation, productivity suffers, and the review becomes a wasted exercise.

The fix: End every review by co-creating a specific action plan with your employee. Include 2-3 development goals, concrete next steps, resources or training needed, and scheduled follow-up dates. Calendar monthly check-ins to track progress and adjust plans as needed. Performance reviews should start conversations, not conclude them.

12. Allowing Leniency or Strictness Bias

The mistake: Some managers consistently rate all employees too positively (leniency bias), while others rate everyone too harshly (strictness bias), neither approach reflecting actual performance.

Why it happens: Leniency stems from conflict avoidance, personal sympathy, or desire to be liked. Strictness comes from unrealistic standards, perfectionism, or the belief that tough ratings motivate improvement.

The impact: Both biases fail to distinguish between good and poor performers. Lenient managers create inflated expectations and make it harder for employees to understand real development needs. Strict managers demoralize teams and lose credibility when employees compare notes and realize everyone gets low ratings.

The fix: Participate in calibration sessions where managers review and discuss their ratings together before finalizing them. This peer accountability naturally surfaces individual rating tendencies. Track your rating distribution—if 90% of your team is “exceeds expectations” or everyone is “needs improvement,” you likely have a bias to address.

Moving Beyond These Common Pitfalls

Performance reviews don’t have to be dreaded, time-consuming exercises that leave everyone frustrated. When done well, they’re powerful tools for employee development, team alignment, and organizational growth.

The fixes above share a common thread: preparation, documentation, specificity, and ongoing dialogue. The managers who succeed at performance reviews treat them as continuous processes, not annual events.

Modern performance management platforms can help address many of these pitfalls. Tools like Windmill automate documentation throughout the year by gathering context from your team’s daily work in tools like GitHub, Jira, and Slack—reducing review preparation time from hours to minutes while minimizing recency bias and ensuring no contributions get overlooked.

Whether you modernize your tools or simply implement better practices, the goal remains the same: performance reviews should clarify expectations, recognize accomplishments, drive development, and strengthen manager-employee relationships. Avoiding these 12 common mistakes is your first step toward reviews that actually work.