Which factor contributes to ineffective performance reviews?

• A. Regular calibration.
• B. Rater lack of training, bias, unclear criteria, insufficient evidence, infrequent feedback, and lack of follow-up.
• C. Clear criteria and frequent feedback.
• D. Objective metrics always used.

Answer: (B)

Ineffective performance reviews come from weaknesses in how the rating process is carried out by the people doing the evaluations. When raters aren’t trained, their judgments can be biased and inconsistent. If criteria aren’t clearly defined, different raters—or the same rater at different times—may interpret performance in different ways, making ratings unreliable. Without enough evidence to back the ratings, employees and managers can’t trust the results. If feedback is given only rarely, employees miss timely guidance to improve, and without follow-up there’s no plan to address gaps or hold progress accountable. That mix of missing training, bias, vague criteria, little supporting evidence, infrequent feedback, and no follow-through is what makes a performance review ineffective.

Regular calibration helps ensure ratings are consistent across raters, which strengthens effectiveness. Clear criteria and frequent feedback provide the structure and guidance that make reviews actionable. Objective metrics can support assessments, but saying they’re always used oversimplifies the process and ignores the essential role of trained, well-supported, timely, and follow-through-driven appraisal practices.