Editorial summary. This is our text summary of an article published by gnews-continuous-feedback. Charts, figures, and the author’s full voice are at the original — read it there .
Editorial verdict
Opinion-led, moderately evidenced. The argument against annual reviews is coherent and draws on recognisable data points, but the article is authored by an ISB faculty member promoting a CPM narrative — the statistics are selectively cited and the 'way forward' framing edges into advocacy rather than analysis.
Executive summary
This article, authored by Hemant Kakkar, Associate Professor of Organisational Behaviour at ISB, examines whether annual performance reviews retain utility in 2026. The central argument is that traditional once-a-year review cycles are increasingly misaligned with contemporary workforce expectations, technological realities, and organisational agility demands. The author traces the historical origins of formal performance evaluation to World War I military practices, chronicles the rise of forced ranking models at GE in the 1980s, and documents the subsequent adoption of annual reviews across 90% of US employers. Key evidence presented includes: a 5,500-hour annual time cost for a 100-person firm; a finding that 67% of Generation Z employees prefer ongoing feedback; data indicating 22% of employees have taken sick leave on review day; and a Workleap global study reporting 83% of employees value receiving feedback. The article concludes that continuous performance management models — characterised by frequent check-ins, psychological safety, and development-oriented feedback — better serve today's workforce. The implications drawn favour a systemic transition away from episodic, high-stakes annual reviews toward embedded, technology-supported feedback cultures.
Key insights
- 1Annual performance reviews have roots in World War I military assessment practices and were adopted by approximately 90% of US employers by the latter half of the 20th century, yet nearly 90% of managers report dissatisfaction with the current annual review process.
- 2A 100-employee organisation dedicates an estimated 5,500 hours annually to the performance review process alone, raising questions about opportunity cost relative to real-time coaching and capability development.
- 3A Workleap study across 150+ countries and 1,000+ organisations found 83% of employees value receiving feedback — including corrective feedback — yet 64% believe the quality of feedback delivered needs to improve, pointing to a skill gap in feedback delivery rather than a rejection of feedback itself.
Practical takeaways
- Organisations transitioning away from annual reviews — as documented in the cases of Kelly Services, Deloitte, PwC, and GE — have adopted agile, real-time assessment frameworks intended to reduce administrative burden and improve engagement.
- Research cited in the article links psychological safety and supportive, specific, non-judgemental feedback to greater learning behaviour and team performance, suggesting that feedback culture design has measurable implications for organisational outcomes.
Frameworks mentioned
Forced Ranking
A performance evaluation method, first introduced by GE in the 1980s, in which employees are assessed relative to one another rather than against defined individual standards.
References
- Harvard Business School Working Knowledge (2024).Why You Might Want to Say Goodbye to the Annual Performance Review.
- Forbes / Forbes Human Resources Council (2020).Here's What Can Happen When Companies Get Rid Of Performance Reviews.
- Forbes (2025).5 Reasons Outdated Performance Reviews Make Top Talent Quit.
- Forbes (2018).It's Time To Put Performance Reviews On Notice.
- Harvard Business Review (2024).Research: Performance Reviews That Actually Motivate Employees.
- ResearchGate (2024).Forced distribution performance evaluation systems: Advantages, disadvantages and keys to implementation.
Source & Provenance
gnews-continuous-feedback
Not specified
September 30, 2025
Opinion/Commentary
Global
Original source metadata is preserved. AI analysis is generated separately.
Like this? Get the Monday Decision Brief — free, every week.
No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
Rate this article
Want the full article? Read it at the original source — free, no paywall.
Read original article