Bill, a client of The Metiss Group, called recently in deep distress. He had just received his annual review, and his scores averaged 1.5 out of 5. He was stunned and deeply disappointed. He had attended regular one-on-ones with his boss, and he believed he was meeting expectations. Nothing in the prior year had prepared him for those numbers. If he had a scorecard, he would not have been surprised.
The Metiss Group works with leadership teams on feedback, accountability, and employee performance, and this story is a familiar one. When an employee is blindsided by a review, the cause is rarely the employee alone.
This article explains why surprise is a leadership issue, how leaders should deliver feedback throughout the year, and how a scorecard can keep the annual review free of surprises.
In this article, you will learn:
- Why a Surprising Performance Review Is a Leadership Problem
- How to Give Feedback Throughout the Year
- How a Scorecard Keeps Employee Performance Reviews Fact-Based
Why a Surprising Performance Review Is a Leadership Problem
A poor review may reflect poor work. A surprised employee reflects poor leadership. The first problem may belong to the employee, while the second belongs to the leader.
Leaders are responsible for providing continuous feedback, both positive and course-correcting, both formal and informal. When they do this well, a formal review or course correction never delivers news.
Many leaders believe they already meet this standard. Gallup research found about half of managers report giving weekly feedback, while only 20% of employees say they receive it that often. Bill's experience illustrates the gap. He met with his boss regularly, but a recurring meeting is not the same as honest feedback.
Most surprises trace back to avoidance. Course correction can be uncomfortable, so leaders postpone it. Deferred feedback behaves like deferred maintenance: the repair grows more expensive with every month of delay. By review season, a small conversation has become a major one, and the employee has lost the chance to improve.
Some direct reports will be surprised no matter how clear or frequent the feedback has been. In those cases, the leader is not at fault. These cases are rare, however, and leaders should be slow to assume they are facing one.
How to Give Feedback Throughout the Year
Regular feedback should not consist only of correction. The Metiss Group recommends a ratio of three positive pieces of feedback for every negative one.
Positive feedback serves a practical purpose. It shows employees which behaviors to repeat, and it builds the trust needed for hard messages to be heard. To do either, it must be specific and sincere. General praise offered to soften criticism will accomplish neither.
The ratio also does not excuse a leader from addressing a problem. When a course correction is needed, it should happen promptly and directly.
How a Scorecard Keeps Employee Performance Reviews Fact-Based
The best way to prevent surprises is to conduct regular, informal performance reviews against a scorecard. A tool such as The Job Scorecard™ gives the leader and the direct report the same standard and the same evidence. The conversation moves from opinion to fact, which makes difficult feedback easier to give and easier to receive.
Bill believed he was meeting expectations, while his boss evidently saw things differently. With a scorecard and regular reviews, this disagreement would have surfaced while he still had time to act on it.
With this rhythm in place, the annual review becomes a summary of conversations already held. Both people walk in knowing what the document will say.
Takeaways
A direct report should never learn the truth about their performance for the first time in a formal review. Leaders prevent this outcome by giving frequent, balanced feedback, addressing problems promptly, and reviewing performance against a scorecard throughout the year. When an employee is surprised, the first question belongs to the leader: what should this person have heard from me sooner?
