Breaking the performance review cycle

Annual performance review → multiple checkpoints — is it working?

Positive developments we’ve been hearing:

• More touch points — employees don’t have to wait all year for feedback
• Ongoing sessions allow employees to reflect more frequently and make quicker adjustments
• Separating feedback and comp allows employees to focus on their development rather than their paychecks

The negatives:

• Managers struggle to find the balance between high-level career development and day-to-day feedback
• Employees suffer under managers who don’t stay consistent with their check-ins
• Politics and favoritism creep into the conversation

How FPL decided to handle talent management
Rather than breaking it, we wanted to rethink how it could actually solve the problem of employee engagement and growth.

Specifically:

• Bi-weekly meetings with constructive feedback on day-to-day work
• Quarterly conversations on job satisfaction and career development
• Annual reviews to pull it all together culminating in a go-forward career path

The verdict? Fewer surprises, higher engagement, and a lower turnover rate. We’d consider our experiment a success so far, but are always looking to improve. Any suggestions?