Performance reviews are structured conversations where employees and managers reflect on outcomes, behaviors, and growth over a defined period.
A good performance review is a summary, not a surprise. It should capture what happened, what impact it had, and what to improve next, with real examples. In SMBs, reviews often break down because managers are busy, expectations are fuzzy, and feedback is saved up until review season. That’s fixable with a simple cadence and lightweight documentation.
For hybrid teams, reviews should include visibility safeguards. Ask employees for a short self-assessment, collect peer input where relevant, and focus on outcomes and collaboration behaviors, not office presence. Reviews work best when they end with a concrete plan for the next 30 to 90 days.
Commonly confused with: continuous feedback
Reviews are periodic and structured. Continuous feedback is ongoing and timely. Continuous feedback makes reviews easier, fairer, and less stressful because the review becomes a wrap-up of known themes.
Workleap field notes from SMB clients
What Workleap clients are saying: From conversations with our SMB clients, reviews become painful when managers rely on end-of-cycle memory instead of capturing examples throughout the period.
Why it matters: Lightweight documentation and regular check-ins make reviews fairer, faster, and less stressful.
In practice: QS needed to run performance reviews quickly while keeping completion high across the organization. They followed a clear process and supported managers through the cycle with consistent structure. The result was strong completion in a short timeframe and less end-of-cycle scrambling. See: How QS ran two company-wide review cycles in 5 months with Workleap.
Many SMBs do biannual reviews with quarterly check-ins. Fast-changing teams sometimes prefer quarterly reviews. Annual-only reviews can work only if managers are consistent with feedback throughout the year.
Not always. Ratings can help with compensation decisions, but they can also create debate if criteria are unclear. Many SMBs start with narrative feedback and a simple outcome category, then add ratings later if needed.
Outcomes vs goals, examples of impact, strengths to keep using, and one to two growth priorities. It should also name support needed, such as training, clearer scope, or resources. End with an action plan and follow-up date.
Use shared criteria, require evidence, and run a short calibration conversation across leaders. Standard templates help reduce “manager style” differences. Document throughout the cycle so the review is based on facts, not recency.
Yes, if they are short and focused. Self-assessments surface work managers may not see and reduce misunderstanding. They also help employees take ownership of growth conversations.
