Organizational leaders have long had to contend with the reality that performance reviews don’t often lead to better performance. But a different approach has recently been proven to be effective.

Traditional review conversations between employees and managers are intended to identify opportunities for improvement and inspire better performance, but there is a large body of evidence that suggests a higher likelihood of these reviews having the opposite effect.

“There are data going back to a seminal study done in General Electric in the mid ‘60s showing that performance dropped for up to 13 weeks after traditional top-down performance appraisals,” says Rotman professor Gary Latham. “And there have been multiple investigations replicating that result since.”

Rather than inspiring better performance, Latham says the data suggest traditional reviews often lead to disagreements and even foster animosity between managers and staff.

“Many employees respond negatively to criticism because they feel that supervisors don't have adequate information with regard to assessing their performance,” he says, adding that the disconnect has only become more pronounced in a more remote world of work. “People often deny the validity of feedback from one’s boss when it's of a critical nature, and especially when it comes from supervisors who seldom see them performing their job.”

In 2010, Israeli researchers Avraham Kluger and Dina Nir proposed a different approach to performance management conversations called “the Feedforward Interview,” and in summer 2024, Latham published  research showing its effectiveness. 

“The name says it all; it says let's focus on and reinforce that which is effective, as opposed to emphasizing deficiencies in the employee,” he says. “It educates the manager — as well as the employee — as to what can be done to maintain, if not increase, an employee’s high performance.”

Questions asked in the Feedforward Interview, according to Professor Latham, are designed to emphasize employee accomplishments and the circumstances that led to those achievements, providing insights into how to replicate those successes. It leans on positive psychology to put employees in control of their future performance, by letting them steer the conversation, rather than having it dictated to them.

“It starts off with the manager saying, ‘We all have setbacks in our lives, and I’m sure you had some setbacks in the past few months. I also know you’ve had successes. I’d like you to pick a particular success, and let’s talk about it,’” Latham says. “Then the manager gives the employee a few minutes to reflect on it.”

After employees share an accomplishment or success they feel good about, Latham says the manager should ask about the circumstances or the context that led to that achievement.

“The second question is, ‘Don't be modest; tell me exactly what you did that enabled you to be highly effective,’” he says. “And the third question is, ‘Why did you feel especially good about that particular accomplishment?’”

Finally, managers are encouraged to ask what they can do over the following months — or until the next scheduled interview — to enable the employee to recreate similar circumstances that allowed the employee to excel during those prior accomplishments. “The data [from Latham’s recent paper] shows that the interviewee leaves not only pleased with the conversation that took place, but that it also increases their subsequent performance,” Latham says.

While the conversation is designed to emphasize the positive emotions that accompanied accomplishments, he says there are still opportunities to discuss opportunities for improvement, so long as it’s focused on the future, and the conversation remains guided by the employee. 

“Instead of dwelling on the negative, we want to keep the emphasis on positive,” he says. “So, the manager may say, ‘Where are some areas that you would like to improve upon?’ and again, ‘In what circumstances?’ ‘What exactly would you do differently next time?’ ‘What skills would you like to acquire?’ ‘What knowledge, what resources do you need, and how can I help you get there?’”

Latham adds that to be effective, the Feedforward Interview – and all performance reviews, for that matter – should be conducted separately from conversations about raises, bonuses and promotions. It’s a strategy that has been well established by the research, but not widely put into practice for practical purposes, he says.

“We know the traditional performance appraisal is needed for administrative reasons. Many provinces and states legally require you to document why you gave one person a promotion, another person a demotion – all that administrative stuff,” he says. “What empirical research has shown is that you should keep the two separate: one conversation on administration, and another on employee development — with the Feedforward Interview strictly focused on developmental.

“The Feedforward Interview is a great way to accomplish developmental goals,” he says. “It helps managers overcome the fear of putting a wall up between them and their employees, and it minimizes the probability of long-lasting hostility between the employee and the boss.”