Performance Reviews

Why performance reviews matter

Done badly, performance reviews are a dreaded box-ticking exercise. Done well, they're one of the most valuable conversations you'll have with a team member.

Recognition — People need to hear when they're doing well. Not just "good job" in passing, but a structured acknowledgement of specific achievements and strengths. Recognition in a formal setting carries weight.

Accountability — When underperformance is documented against clear criteria, the conversation becomes about evidence rather than opinion. This is fairer for the team member and more defensible for the manager.

Development direction — Performance reviews set the focus for the next period. What should they work on? What skills do they need to develop? What support will you provide? Clear goals give people something to aim for.

Fairness — When everyone is assessed against the same role-specific criteria, the process is consistent. This reduces bias and builds trust in the system.

Legal protection — If performance management ever leads to formal action, documented reviews with clear criteria and evidence are essential. Without them, any process is vulnerable to challenge.

How the templates work

Each performance review template is built around the competencies that define success in that specific role. The common structure includes:

Role-specific competency areas — The key areas of performance for that role. A warehouse operative is assessed on picking accuracy, equipment care, and reliability. A branch manager is assessed on commercial performance, team leadership, and compliance management. Different roles, different criteria.

Behavioural indicators — For each competency, specific observable behaviours that distinguish different performance levels. This removes subjectivity — instead of "good at their job," you're assessing whether "standards are consistently maintained without supervision."

Rating scale — A consistent scale applied across all competencies, allowing you to identify strengths and development areas clearly.

Evidence prompts — Reminders to reference specific examples, one-to-one notes, and documented incidents rather than relying on general impressions.

Development planning — Space to agree on goals, support needed, and how progress will be measured in the next period.

Before the review

Gather evidence — Don't rely on memory. Look at one-to-one notes, feedback from colleagues, incident records, achievements, and training completion. The more specific your evidence, the more useful the conversation.

Request self-assessment — Ask the team member to reflect on their own performance before the review. This gives them ownership of the conversation and often surfaces insights you might miss.

No surprises — Nothing in a performance review should be news. If there's been an issue, they should already know about it from your one-to-ones. The review summarises and formalises — it doesn't ambush.

During the review

Start with strengths — What have they done well? Be specific with examples. "You handled that client complaint really well — you stayed calm, apologised, and resolved it on the spot" is better than "you're good with people."

Be direct about areas for improvement — Vague feedback helps no one. "You need to be more proactive" means nothing. "I'd like to see you flag stock shortages before we run out" is actionable.

Connect to the job description — Reference the expectations you both agreed to. The job description is your shared baseline — use it.

Listen to their perspective — You might not have the full picture. Maybe they've been covering for someone else. Maybe they've been struggling with something you didn't know about. Give them space to explain.

Agree on goals — What should they focus on before the next review? Make goals specific, measurable, and achievable. "Improve your leadership" is vague. "Run two shifts independently per week by the end of next month" is clear.

Rating fairly

Use consistent criteria — Everyone in the same role should be measured against the same standards. The templates provide this consistency.

Avoid recency bias — Consider the whole review period, not just the last few weeks. This is where your one-to-one notes are invaluable — they cover the full period, not just what you remember from last Tuesday.

Be honest — Inflating ratings doesn't help anyone. It stores up problems, prevents development, and undermines the credibility of the process. If someone is meeting expectations, say so. If they're exceeding them, say so. If they're falling short, say so — with evidence and support.

Using Pilla for performance reviews

Create review templates as work items in Pilla. Each template captures the role-specific competency framework, rating scales, and evidence fields. When completed during the review, Pilla creates a timestamped record of every assessment, rating, and agreed action — building a documented history that supports fair, consistent performance management across your team.

Kitchen

Kitchen performance reviews assess both technical skill and the behaviours that make kitchens function — reliability, standards, teamwork under pressure, and development at every level.

Front of House

Front-of-house reviews balance measurable service metrics with the interpersonal qualities that guests notice — attentiveness, warmth, and composure under pressure.

Bar

Bar reviews assess drink knowledge and speed alongside customer engagement and operational responsibilities — reflecting the multi-faceted nature of bar roles.

Management

Management reviews assess leadership effectiveness, commercial acumen, and team development — the outcomes that matter most at management level.

Hotel

Hotel reviews reflect the service standards and professional development pathways that distinguish hotel careers. Each framework addresses both guest-facing and operational competencies.

Events & Catering

Events and catering reviews assess adaptability and coordination alongside core competencies — reflecting the varied environments and changing demands of these roles.

Common mistakes

Recency bias — Only considering the last few weeks instead of the whole review period. Your one-to-one notes are the antidote — they cover the full period.

Inflating ratings — Giving everyone "exceeds expectations" to avoid difficult conversations. This devalues recognition for people who genuinely are exceptional, and prevents underperformers from getting the feedback they need.

No evidence — "You need to improve" without specific examples is unfair and unhelpful. Every rating should be supported by documented evidence.

Surprising people — If the first time someone hears about underperformance is in their annual review, the system has failed. Regular one-to-ones should mean nothing in the review is news.

Vague feedback — "Be more proactive" and "show more initiative" are meaningless without context. Be specific about what behaviour you want to see and in what situations.

No follow-up — If you agree on goals and then never mention them again, the review was a waste of time. Track agreed actions in subsequent one-to-ones.

Inconsistent standards — If you rate one team member highly for the same performance that earns another an average rating, people notice. Use the same criteria for everyone in the same role.

After the review

Document the outcome — Written summary of what was discussed, what was rated, and what was agreed. Both parties should have access to this record.

Follow up on commitments — If you promised training, support, or a development opportunity, deliver it. If they committed to specific improvements, check progress in your one-to-ones.

Continue the conversation — Don't wait another six months or a year. Performance reviews set the direction; one-to-ones maintain it. The habits you build between reviews determine whether the goals you set actually happen.