Redesigning Performance Management Across 25+ Markets
Performance reviews were widely viewed as a bureaucratic exercise. Participation was only 62% globally, and in some markets below 55%. Managers described the process as time-consuming and ineffective. Employees said the feedback they received had no bearing on their development or their pay.
The private equity owner had flagged performance management as a risk factor in the pre-acquisition due diligence. Eighteen months after acquisition, the problem had not improved. An interim CHRO was engaged to diagnose the issue and redesign the process from the ground up.
The Diagnosis
The interim CHRO conducted a structured review of the existing process, including interviews with managers and employees across eight markets representing the full range of participation rates. The diagnosis identified four core problems:
| Process complexity | The review process required managers to complete a 14-section form covering competencies, objectives, development plans, and behavioural ratings. Average completion time was estimated at 4 hours per employee. Managers with large teams were spending weeks on administration. |
| Disconnection from pay | The outcome of the review had no clear or consistent link to pay decisions. Managers and employees both knew this, which reduced motivation to engage seriously with the process. |
| No calibration | Rating decisions were made by individual managers with no cross-team calibration. The result was significant rating inflation in some teams and harsh scoring in others, with no consistency across the organisation. |
| Annual cycle mismatch | A single annual review was out of step with the pace of the business. Objectives set in January were frequently irrelevant by June. Employees received formal feedback once a year, which was too infrequent to drive behaviour change. |
The Intervention
The interim CHRO designed a replacement performance framework in consultation with senior leaders across the business. The new framework was piloted in three markets before global rollout.
Simplified process: The 14-section form was replaced with a structured 3-part conversation framework covering achievements against objectives, development priorities, and the coming quarter. Documentation was reduced to a single summary page. Average manager time per employee fell from 4 hours to 45 minutes.
Pay linkage: A clear and transparent pay review framework was introduced, linking performance outcomes directly to salary review recommendations. The link was communicated clearly to all employees before the first review cycle under the new process.
Calibration sessions: Mandatory calibration sessions were introduced for all management teams before ratings were finalised. A central HR business partner facilitated each session. Rating distributions were reviewed against team and market norms.
Quarterly cadence: The annual review was replaced with a quarterly check-in cycle. Objectives were set and reviewed quarterly. The annual review became a summary conversation rather than the primary feedback event.
The Results
In the first full cycle under the new framework, participation rose from 62% to 89% globally. In the three pilot markets, participation reached 94%. Manager satisfaction with the process, measured via a post-cycle survey, improved from 31% positive to 76% positive.
Employee feedback scores on the clarity of performance expectations improved by 22 percentage points in the annual engagement survey conducted six months after the redesign. Voluntary turnover among high performers – a key metric for the private equity owner – fell by 14% in the 12 months following implementation.
By Ingmar Booij | 18.03.26