Common Mistakes
Learn from these common pitfalls to run more effective People Review campaigns.
Campaign Design Mistakes
Mistake 1: Overloading Criteria
❌ PROBLEM
Enabling all evaluation criteria plus 5+ custom fields.
WHY IT'S A MISTAKE
├── Creates assessment fatigue
├── Reduces completion rates
├── Dilutes focus on what matters
└── Extends calibration time significantly
✓ SOLUTION
├── Enable only essential criteria (2-4 max)
├── Limit custom fields (2-3 max)
├── Ask: "Will we act on this data?"
└── If no action planned, don't collect it
Mistake 2: Unrealistic Timelines
❌ PROBLEM
Setting a 2-week window for comprehensive reviews.
WHY IT'S A MISTAKE
├── Managers don't have time to reflect
├── Rushed assessments lack quality
├── High non-completion rates
└── Creates stress and resistance
✓ SOLUTION
├── Allow 4-6 weeks for review period
├── Account for vacation/busy periods
├── Build in buffer before calibration
└── Communicate timeline early
Mistake 3: Wrong Scope Size
❌ PROBLEM
Including 200+ employees in a single campaign.
WHY IT'S A MISTAKE
├── Calibration becomes unwieldy
├── Discussion time per person drops
├── Patterns harder to identify
└── Quality suffers
✓ SOLUTION
├── Aim for 30-80 employees per campaign
├── Split by department or level
├── Run multiple focused campaigns
└── Easier to manage and calibrate
Evaluation Mistakes
Mistake 4: Rating Inflation
❌ PROBLEM
Everyone is rated as "Exceeds Expectations" or placed in top cells.
WHY IT'S A MISTAKE
├── Undermines the purpose of talent review
├── Makes development planning impossible
├── Creates false expectations
└── Reduces credibility of the process
✓ SOLUTION
├── Calibrate expectations before reviews
├── Provide rating distribution guidelines
├── Challenge outlier distributions in calibration
└── Normalize what "Exceeds" really means
Mistake 5: Central Tendency
❌ PROBLEM
All ratings cluster at 3/5 or "Meets Expectations."
WHY IT'S A MISTAKE
├── No differentiation between employees
├── Can't identify high-potentials or concerns
├── Wastes calibration time
└── Provides no actionable insights
✓ SOLUTION
├── Require managers to differentiate
├── Ask for specific examples to justify ratings
├── Use relative comparisons in calibration
└── Train managers on effective rating
Mistake 6: Recency Bias
❌ PROBLEM
Assessments based only on recent events, ignoring full year performance.
WHY IT'S A MISTAKE
├── Unfair to consistent performers
├── Rewards last-minute heroics
├── Penalizes early-year achievements
└── Inconsistent with actual performance
✓ SOLUTION
├── Remind managers to consider full period
├── Provide access to historical data
├── Use quarterly check-in notes if available
└── Challenge during calibration if suspected
Calibration Mistakes
Mistake 7: Insufficient Time
❌ PROBLEM
Scheduling 1 hour to calibrate 60 employees.
WHY IT'S A MISTAKE
├── About 1 minute per person
├── No time for meaningful discussion
├── Borderline cases get skipped
└── Consensus not truly reached
✓ SOLUTION
├── Plan 2-4 hours for 30-50 employees
├── Focus on borderline cases
├── Pre-identify discussion priorities
└── Better less employees, more depth
Mistake 8: One Voice Dominates
❌ PROBLEM
Senior leader's opinion determines all placements.
WHY IT'S A MISTAKE
├── Other perspectives lost
├── Bias goes unchallenged
├── Reduces buy-in
└── Defeats purpose of collective review
✓ SOLUTION
├── Facilitator manages airtime
├── Actively solicit diverse views
├── Use structured discussion format
└── Ground rules about participation
Mistake 9: Skipping Documentation
❌ PROBLEM
Decisions made but not recorded.
WHY IT'S A MISTAKE
├── Can't explain changes later
├── Legal/compliance risk
├── Lessons lost for next cycle
└── Disputes hard to resolve
✓ SOLUTION
├── Assign dedicated note-taker
├── Document every movement and rationale
├── Capture key discussion points
└── Save calibration notes with campaign
Mistake 10: Avoiding Difficult Decisions
❌ PROBLEM
Leaving underperformers in "safe" middle cells.
WHY IT'S A MISTAKE
├── Problems not addressed
├── Development needs ignored
├── Unfair to true middle performers
└── Erodes process credibility
✓ SOLUTION
├── Commit to honest assessment
├── Create safe space for difficult conversations
├── Remember: accurate is kind in long run
└── Document support plans for concerns
Assignment Mistakes
Mistake 11: Ignoring Hierarchy Gaps
❌ PROBLEM
Launching campaign without checking all employees have reviewers.
WHY IT'S A MISTAKE
├── Employees without assessments
├── Last-minute scrambling
├── Incomplete data at calibration
└── Process looks disorganized
✓ SOLUTION
├── Validate assignments before launch
├── Address gaps proactively
├── Have process for exceptions
└── Test with sample before full launch
Mistake 12: Wrong Hierarchy Level
❌ PROBLEM
Using N+2 for routine talent reviews.
WHY IT'S A MISTAKE
├── Skip-level managers lack day-to-day insight
├── Assessments less accurate
├── Direct managers feel bypassed
└── More gaps in reviewer data
✓ SOLUTION
├── Default to N (direct manager)
├── Reserve skip-level for senior roles
├── Consider input from multiple levels
└── Match hierarchy to what makes sense
Communication Mistakes
Mistake 13: Surprise Launch
❌ PROBLEM
Launching campaign without advance communication.
WHY IT'S A MISTAKE
├── Managers unprepared
├── Resistance and confusion
├── Lower engagement
└── Questions overwhelm HR
✓ SOLUTION
├── Communicate 2+ weeks before
├── Explain purpose and process
├── Share timeline and expectations
└── Provide training if needed
Mistake 14: No Follow-Through
❌ PROBLEM
Completing calibration but no action on results.
WHY IT'S A MISTAKE
├── Effort feels wasted
├── Managers lose faith in process
├── Talent decisions not made
└── No ROI on time invested
✓ SOLUTION
├── Define actions for each cell/segment
├── Follow up on development plans
├── Track movement year-over-year
└── Close the loop with stakeholders
Technical Mistakes
Mistake 15: Not Testing Configuration
❌ PROBLEM
Launching without testing the full workflow.
WHY IT'S A MISTAKE
├── Discover issues during live campaign
├── Confuses participants
├── Creates workarounds and errors
└── Undermines confidence in system
✓ SOLUTION
├── Test with HR team first
├── Pilot with small group
├── Verify matrix, criteria, assignments
└── Check all edge cases
Mistake 16: Ignoring Data Quality
❌ PROBLEM
Proceeding despite missing employee data (no manager, wrong department).
WHY IT'S A MISTAKE
├── Assignments fail
├── Reports are inaccurate
├── Calibration groups wrong
└── Clean-up during active campaign
✓ SOLUTION
├── Audit data before launch
├── Fix organizational hierarchy
├── Validate group memberships
└── Allow time for data cleanup
Anti-Pattern Summary
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ANTI-PATTERNS CHECKLIST │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Design │
│ ☐ Too many criteria/fields │
│ ☐ Timeline too short │
│ ☐ Scope too large │
│ │
│ Evaluation │
│ ☐ Rating inflation │
│ ☐ Central tendency (all 3s) │
│ ☐ Recency bias │
│ │
│ Calibration │
│ ☐ Not enough time │
│ ☐ Dominated discussion │
│ ☐ Missing documentation │
│ ☐ Avoiding hard decisions │
│ │
│ Assignment │
│ ☐ Hierarchy gaps ignored │
│ ☐ Wrong hierarchy level │
│ │
│ Communication │
│ ☐ Surprise launch │
│ ☐ No follow-through │
│ │
│ Technical │
│ ☐ Untested configuration │
│ ☐ Poor data quality │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Recovery Strategies
When Things Go Wrong
| Problem | Recovery |
|---|---|
| Low completion | Extend deadline, targeted outreach |
| Rating inflation | Address in calibration, train for next time |
| Missing reviewers | Manual assignment, extend timeline |
| Calibration ran over | Schedule follow-up session |
| Data errors found | Pause, fix, communicate |
Navigation
- Previous: Best Practices
- Next: Quick Reference
- Back to: Documentation Index