Common Mistakes
This guide identifies frequent errors and pitfalls in managing and participating in performance review campaigns, along with guidance on how to avoid them.
HR Administrator Mistakes
Campaign Design Errors
Mistake 1: Unrealistic Timelines
PROBLEM:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Campaign: Annual Review 2024 │
│ Self-Evaluation: 5 days (too short!) │
│ Reviewer Phase: 5 days (too short!) │
│ Interview: 3 days (too short!) │
│ Total: 13 days for 200 employees │
│ │
│ Result: 40% completion, stressed participants, poor quality │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SOLUTION:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Campaign: Annual Review 2024 │
│ Self-Evaluation: 14 days │
│ Reviewer Phase: 14 days │
│ Interview: 7 days │
│ Buffer: 5 days │
│ Total: 40 days for 200 employees │
│ │
│ Result: 95% completion, thoughtful responses, quality reviews │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Why It Happens: Pressure to complete reviews quickly, underestimating participant workload.
How to Avoid:
- Use recommended durations: 14-21 days per major phase
- Add buffer time for holidays and busy periods
- Consider participant workload beyond the review
Mistake 2: Forms That Are Too Long
PROBLEM:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Form: Annual Performance Review │
│ ├── Section 1: Goals (8 questions) │
│ ├── Section 2: Competencies (10 questions) │
│ ├── Section 3: Skills (6 questions) │
│ ├── Section 4: Development (8 questions) │
│ ├── Section 5: Career (5 questions) │
│ ├── Section 6: Feedback (6 questions) │
│ ├── Section 7: Training (4 questions) │
│ └── Section 8: Goals Next Year (5 questions) │
│ │
│ Total: 52 questions × 2 participants = 104 form responses! │
│ Average completion time: 3+ hours per person │
│ Result: Survey fatigue, shallow answers, incomplete reviews │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SOLUTION:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Form: Annual Performance Review (Optimized) │
│ ├── Section 1: Goal Achievement (4 questions) │
│ ├── Section 2: Core Competencies (5 questions) │
│ ├── Section 3: Development (3 questions) │
│ └── Section 4: Future Objectives (3 questions) │
│ │
│ Total: 15 questions │
│ Average completion time: 45-60 minutes │
│ Result: Focused, quality responses │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Why It Happens: Trying to capture everything at once, multiple stakeholders adding requirements.
How to Avoid:
- Limit forms to 15-25 questions
- Focus on actionable insights, not data collection
- Use quarterly check-ins for ongoing items
Mistake 3: Confusing Question Wording
PROBLEM:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Question: "Rate the employee's proactive engagement with │
│ cross-functional stakeholder alignment initiatives and │
│ their contribution to the organizational synergy objectives │
│ while maintaining compliance with departmental KPIs." │
│ │
│ □ Strongly Disagree □ Disagree □ Neutral □ Agree □ Strongly│
│ │
│ Result: Confused participants, inconsistent answers │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SOLUTION:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Question: "How well does the employee collaborate with │
│ other teams?" │
│ │
│ □ Rarely collaborates │
│ □ Collaborates when required │
│ □ Actively seeks collaboration │
│ □ Leads cross-team initiatives │
│ │
│ Result: Clear understanding, consistent responses │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Why It Happens: Corporate jargon, trying to be comprehensive in one question.
How to Avoid:
- Use simple, clear language
- Ask one thing per question
- Provide clear, distinct answer options
- Test questions with non-HR staff before launch
Mistake 4: Launching During Busy Periods
PROBLEM:
Campaign launched: December 15
├── Christmas holidays: December 24-January 1
├── Year-end close: December 28-31
├── New Year: January 1-2
└── People back to work: January 3
Self-Evaluation deadline: January 10
Result: 7 working days for a 14-day phase
Mass deadline extensions needed
Frustrated participants
Why It Happens: Fiscal year pressure, poor planning, not checking calendar.
How to Avoid:
- Check company calendar for holidays and events
- Avoid month/quarter end busy periods
- Consider vacation seasons
- Add buffer for predictable delays
Participant Management Errors
Mistake 5: Wrong Evaluator Assignment
PROBLEM:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Employee: Alice Chen │
│ Actual Manager: Bob Smith (started 2 weeks ago) │
│ Previous Manager: Carol Davis (left company) │
│ Assigned Evaluator: Bob Smith │
│ │
│ Issue: Bob doesn't know Alice's performance over the year │
│ Result: Generic, unhelpful evaluation │
└──────────── ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SOLUTION:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Employee: Alice Chen │
│ Main Evaluator: Bob Smith (current manager) │
│ Secondary Evaluator: Diana Evans (project lead who worked │
│ closely with Alice for 8 months) │
│ │
│ Result: Comprehensive evaluation with multiple perspectives │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Why It Happens: Automatic assignment without verification, org chart changes.
How to Avoid:
- Review evaluator assignments before launch
- Identify recent manager changes
- Add secondary reviewers for complex situations
- Allow evaluators to add context about relationship length
Mistake 6: Overloading Evaluators
PROBLEM:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Evaluator: Department Head Sarah │
│ Assigned Reviews: 25 direct reports │
│ Time Available: 2 hours per day for reviews │
│ Required Time: ~45 min per review = 19 hours total │
│ Phase Duration: 10 days │
│ │
│ Reality: Days 1-8 → 5 reviews done │
│ Days 9-10 → Rush through remaining 20 │
│ │
│ Result: First 5 get thoughtful reviews │
│ Last 20 get rushed, generic feedback │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SOLUTION:
├── Split large team across multiple campaigns
├── Extend timeline for managers with >10 reports
├── Add secondary evaluators to share load
└── Consider skip-level reviews for very large teams
Why It Happens: Not accounting for manager span of control, equal deadlines for all.
How to Avoid:
- Limit to 8-10 reviews per evaluator
- Identify high-load evaluators early
- Adjust timelines or add support
- Monitor evaluator progress during campaign
Monitoring Errors
Mistake 7: Not Tracking Progress
PROBLEM:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Campaign Status: Day 12 of 14 (Self-Evaluation Phase) │
│ │
│ HR Admin: "How's the campaign going?" │
│ System: "Let me check..." │
│ │
│ Completed: 45% │
│ In Progress: 15% │
│ Not Started: 40% ← 40% haven't even opened the form! │
│ │
│ Result: Panic reminders, deadline extension, rushed responses │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SOLUTION:
Daily check-in schedule:
├── Day 3: First reminder to non-starters
├── Day 7: Progress check (should be ~50%)
├── Day 10: Warning for low completion
├── Day 12: Final push communications
└── Day 14: Close with maximum completion
Why It Happens: "Set and forget" mentality, other priorities.
How to Avoid:
- Set daily monitoring reminders
- Use dashboard alerts for stalled reviews
- Intervene early with non-starters
- Have escalation process ready
Manager Mistakes
Evaluation Errors
Mistake 8: Recency Bias
PROBLEM:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Review Period: January - December 2024 │
│ │
│ January-October: Employee delivered excellent work │
│ - Completed 3 major projects │
│ - Mentored 2 junior colleagues │
│ - Received client commendation │
│ │
│ November: Employee made one significant mistake │
│ - Missed a deadline │
│ - Caused minor project delay │
│ │
│ Manager's Rating: "Needs Improvement" │
│ (Based primarily on November incident) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SOLUTION:
├── Review notes from entire period before evaluating
├── List accomplishments chronologically
├── Weight events proportionally to time period
├── Consider overall pattern, not single events
└── Ask: "What was the full year like?"
Why It Happens: Recent events are more memorable, emotional impact of recent issues.
How to Avoid:
- Keep running notes throughout the year
- Review past 1:1 notes before evaluating
- Look at objective data for full period
- Consider the employee's full body of work
Mistake 9: Central Tendency (All "Meets Expectations")
PROBLEM:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Team of 8 Employees - All Rated "3 - Meets Expectations" │
│ │
│ Alice: Top performer → 3 │
│ Bob: Solid contributor → 3 │
│ Charlie: Average performer → 3 │
│ Diana: Struggling employee → 3 │
│ ... (everyone is 3) │
│ │
│ Result: No differentiation, no recognition, no development │
│ High performers feel undervalued │
│ Low performers don't get needed feedback │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SOLUTION:
Use the full scale with justification:
├── 5: Far Exceeds → Reserve for exceptional (5-10%)
├── 4: Exceeds → Strong performers (20-30%)
├── 3: Meets → Solid contributors (40-50%)
├── 2: Needs Improvement → Development needed (10-20%)
└── 1: Below → Serious concerns (rare)
Why It Happens: Avoiding difficult conversations, fear of documentation, conflict avoidance.
How to Avoid:
- Use specific examples to justify ratings
- Compare to role expectations, not other employees
- Consider: "Would I give them a raise/promotion based on this year?"
- Get calibration guidance from HR
Mistake 10: Vague Feedback
PROBLEM:
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────── ────────────┐
│ Evaluation Comment: │
│ │
│ "Alice is a good team player and works hard. She should │
│ continue to develop her skills and improve in some areas. │
│ Overall, she has done a satisfactory job this year." │
│ │
│ What does Alice learn? │
│ - What specific skills? │
│ - Which areas to improve? │
│ - How was she a good team player? │
│ - What should she do differently? │
└──────────────────────────────────── ─────────────────────────────┘
SOLUTION:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Evaluation Comment (Using SBI Model): │
│ │
│ "During the Q3 product launch (Situation), Alice identified │
│ a critical security vulnerability two days before release │
│ and coordinated with the security team to fix it (Behavior). │
│ This prevented potential customer data exposure and saved │
│ approximately $50K in remediation costs (Impact). │
│ │
│ For development, I recommend Alice focus on presenting │
│ technical decisions to non-technical stakeholders. Consider │
│ joining the architecture review board for practice." │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Why It Happens: Time pressure, not preparing before writing, avoiding specifics.
How to Avoid:
- Use the SBI model (Situation, Behavior, Impact)
- Prepare specific examples before writing
- Make feedback actionable, not just observational
- Be concrete about development recommendations
Interview Errors
Mistake 11: Not Preparing for the Interview
PROBLEM:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Interview Day │
│ │
│ Manager: "So, let's see... I think I rated you a 3 on that │
│ question... or was it a 4? Let me scroll down... │
│ Oh, you gave yourself a 5? That's interesting... │
│ I don't remember what this question was about..." │
│ │
│ Employee: Feels unprepared, manager doesn't value the review │
│ │
│ Result: Unproductive meeting, damaged relationship │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SOLUTION:
Before the interview:
├── Review both evaluations side-by-side
├── Note areas of agreement and difference
├── Prepare talking points for differences
├── Have specific examples ready
├── Plan the meeting structure
└── Reserve at least 45-60 minutes
Why It Happens: Busy schedule, last-minute meetings, underestimating importance.
How to Avoid:
- Block preparation time before each interview
- Print or prepare notes in advance
- Have a meeting agenda ready
- Clear calendar for sufficient time
Mistake 12: Not Locking Before Closing
PROBLEM:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Interview is finished... │
│ │
│ Manager clicks "Submit" → Error! │
│ "Review must be locked before completion" │
│ │
│ Manager: "What? Locked? Where?" │
│ │
│ Result: Confusion, wasted time, frustrated manager │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SOLUTION:
Interview completion workflow:
1. Finish discussion → Add final comments
2. Click "Lock Review" (disables further comments)
3. Complete performance score (if applicable)
4. Click "Submit" to complete the interview phase
5. Proceed to signatures
Why It Happens: Unfamiliarity with process, skipping training.
How to Avoid:
- Train managers on interview workflow before campaign
- Include lock step in interview checklist
- Make locking prominent in the interface
- Provide clear error messages with guidance
Employee Mistakes
Self-Evaluation Errors
Mistake 13: Underselling Achievements
PROBLEM:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Self-Evaluation: │
│ │
│ "I did my job. Completed assigned tasks. Attended meetings. │
│ Nothing special to report." │
│ │
│ Reality: │
│ - Led a critical project to successful completion │
│ - Mentored a new team member │
│ - Resolved a customer escalation │
│ - Learned a new programming language │
│ │
│ Result: Manager rates based on minimal self-input │
│ Achievements go unnoticed │
│ Missed opportunity for recognition │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SOLUTION:
Before writing self-evaluation:
├── List all projects you worked on
├── Note any recognitions or positive feedback
├── Identify problems you solved
├── Document new skills learned
├── Quantify impact where possible
└── Be specific and confident
Why It Happens: Modesty, not tracking accomplishments, rushing.
How to Avoid:
- Keep a running list of achievements throughout the year
- Ask colleagues what they appreciated about your work
- Review emails for positive feedback
- Be factual and specific, not boastful
Mistake 14: Only Listing Recent Accomplishments
PROBLEM:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Review Period: January - December 2024 │
│ Self-Evaluation Written: December 15 │
│ │
│ Accomplishments Listed: │
│ - Finished the November report (last month) │
│ - Attended the December training (this month) │
│ - Helped with the fall campaign (recent) │
│ │
│ Forgotten: │
│ - Q1 product launch (huge success) │
│ - Q2 client acquisition (major win) │
│ - Q3 process improvement (saved 20 hours/week) │
│ - Summer mentoring program (trained 3 new hires) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SOLUTION:
Review the entire period:
├── Q1: What projects? What outcomes?
├── Q2: What challenges overcome?
├── Q3: What improvements made?
├── Q4: What completed recently?
└── Full Year: What skills developed?
Why It Happens: Memory bias, not keeping records, waiting until last minute.
How to Avoid:
- Review calendar for the full period
- Check project management tools for completed tasks
- Look at email history for major initiatives
- Start self-evaluation early to allow for memory
Mistake 15: Ignoring Development Areas
PROBLEM:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Self-Evaluation Development Section: │
│ │
│ "Areas for improvement: None. I feel I'm performing well │
│ in all aspects of my role." │
│ │
│ Manager's Perception: │
│ "Lacks self-awareness. Everyone has growth areas. │
│ This makes me question their judgment." │
│ │
│ Result: Lower credibility, missed development opportunities │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SOLUTION:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Self-Evaluation Development Section: │
│ │
│ "I've identified two areas for growth: │
│ │
│ 1. Public Speaking: I want to become more comfortable │
│ presenting to larger groups. I've enrolled in │
│ Toastmasters starting January. │
│ │
│ 2. Technical Depth: I'd like to deepen my expertise in │
│ cloud architecture. I'm requesting training budget │
│ for the AWS Solutions Architect certification." │
│ │
│ Manager's Perception: │
│ "Self-aware, growth-oriented, proactive about development" │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Why It Happens: Fear of appearing weak, defensive posture.
How to Avoid:
- Everyone has growth areas - it's expected
- Frame development as aspirational, not deficient
- Connect growth areas to career goals
- Propose solutions alongside areas for improvement
Interview Participation Errors
Mistake 16: Being Defensive About Feedback
PROBLEM:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Interview Dialogue: │
│ │
│ Manager: "I noticed you missed the deadline on the │
│ Q3 project. Can we discuss what happened?" │
│ │
│ Employee: "That wasn't my fault! The requirements kept │
│ changing, and IT didn't give us access on time, │
│ and the team wasn't pulling their weight, and..." │
│ │
│ Result: Defensive posture, missed learning opportunity, │
│ damaged relationship with manager │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SOLUTION:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Interview Dialogue: │
│ │
│ Manager: "I noticed you missed the deadline on the │
│ Q3 project. Can we discuss what happened?" │
│ │
│ Employee: "You're right, and I've been reflecting on that. │
│ Looking back, I should have escalated the access │
│ issues earlier and flagged the requirement changes │
│ as risks. For future projects, I'm planning to │
│ build in more buffer time and have weekly risk │
│ check-ins. Would that approach work for you?" │
│ │
│ Result: Constructive dialogue, learning, stronger relationship │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Why It Happens: Natural human response to criticism, feeling attacked.
How to Avoid:
- Listen fully before responding
- Acknowledge the feedback before explaining
- Focus on learning, not blame
- Ask for suggestions to improve
- Stay calm and professional
Mistake 17: Not Asking Questions
PROBLEM:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Interview Dialogue: │
│ │
│ Manager: "So, any questions for me?" │
│ │
│ Employee: "No, I think we covered everything." │
│ │
│ Thoughts: "What exactly should I focus on next quarter? │
│ What does it take to get promoted? │
│ How can I get more visibility on key projects?" │
│ │
│ Result: Missed opportunity for career guidance │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SOLUTION:
Prepared questions:
├── "What specific skills should I develop for promotion?"
├── "How can I get more exposure to [area of interest]?"
├── "What's one thing I could improve that would have the biggest impact?"
├── "Are there any projects coming up where I could contribute more?"
└── "How do you see my career trajectory in the next 2-3 years?"
Why It Happens: Not preparing, feeling the meeting is "over."
How to Avoid:
- Prepare 3-5 questions before the interview
- Ask about career development
- Request specific feedback
- Clarify expectations for next period
- Use this as a career conversation, not just an evaluation
System and Process Mistakes
Configuration Errors
Mistake 18: Sequential Mode Without Buffer
PROBLEM:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Phase Configuration: Sequential Mode │
│ │
│ Self-Evaluation: Days 1-14 │
│ Reviewer Phase: Days 15-28 (cannot start until self is done) │
│ Interview: Days 29-35 │
│ │
│ What Happens: │
│ - Day 14: Only 80% of self-evals complete │
│ - Day 15: Reviewers can only see 80% of reviews │
│ - Day 20: Last self-eval submitted │
│ - Day 28: Some reviewers only had 8 days, not 14 │
│ │
│ Result: Compressed reviewer timelines, delayed interviews │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SOLUTION:
Either:
├── Use Parallel Mode (both phases run simultaneously)
├── Add buffer days between phases
├── Aggressively enforce phase 1 completion
└── Extend phase 2 if phase 1 runs late
Why It Happens: Not understanding sequential mode implications.
How to Avoid:
- Understand the difference between parallel and sequential
- Build in transition time between phases
- Monitor phase 1 completion aggressively
- Have contingency plans for late completions
Mistake 19: Missing Required Fields
PROBLEM:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Form has 15 questions, 10 marked as required │
│ │
│ What Happens: │
│ - Question 7 (critical feedback) → Not required │
│ - 60% of participants skip it │
│ - Data is incomplete for analysis │
│ │
│ OR: │
│ │
│ - All 15 questions marked as required │
│ - Question 12: "Additional comments (optional)" │
│ - Participants forced to write something │
│ - "N/A" or "." entered to bypass │
│ │
│ Result: Either missing data or junk data │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SOLUTION:
Required field strategy:
├── Make truly essential questions required
├── Don't require "additional comments" fields
├── Consider: "Would a blank answer be meaningful?"
├── Test form completion flow before launch
└── Typically: 60-80% of questions should be required
Why It Happens: Not thinking through completion scenarios.
How to Avoid:
- Review each question's required status deliberately
- Consider user experience when completing
- Test the form yourself before launch
- Get feedback from pilot participants
Mistake 20: Inconsistent Visibility Settings
PROBLEM:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Campaign Settings: │
│ ├── Employee can see reviewer's answers: OFF │
│ └── Reviewer can see employee's answers: ON │
│ │
│ What Happens: │
│ - Reviewer sees employee's self-evaluation │
│ - Reviewer may be biased by employee's self-ratings │
│ - At interview, employee cannot see reviewer's feedback │
│ - Interview becomes one-sided presentation │
│ │
│ Result: Asymmetric information, unproductive interview │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SOLUTION:
Common configurations:
├── Both OFF: Independent evaluations, reveal at interview
├── Both ON: Full transparency throughout
├── Reviewer ON only: Manager sees context, employee sees at interview
├── Both ON at Interview: Full disclosure during discussion
Choose based on culture and intent.
Why It Happens: Not considering the full participant experience.
How to Avoid:
- Consider visibility from both perspectives
- Test with real scenario: "What will the employee see at each stage?"
- Align visibility with desired interview dynamics
- Document and communicate settings to participants
Summary: Top Mistakes by Stakeholder
HR Administrators
| # | Mistake | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Unrealistic timelines | Low completion, poor quality |
| 2 | Forms too long | Survey fatigue, incomplete responses |
| 3 | Confusing questions | Inconsistent, unreliable data |
| 4 | Bad timing | Frustrated participants, extensions |
| 5 | Wrong evaluators | Generic, unhelpful feedback |
| 6 | Overloaded evaluators | Rushed, inconsistent reviews |
| 7 | Not monitoring | Surprised by low completion |
Managers
| # | Mistake | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| 8 | Recency bias | Unfair ratings |
| 9 | Central tendency | No differentiation |
| 10 | Vague feedback | No actionable development |
| 11 | Unprepared interviews | Wasted time, damaged trust |
| 12 | Not locking | Process confusion |
Employees
| # | Mistake | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| 13 | Underselling | Missed recognition |
| 14 | Recency focus | Incomplete picture |
| 15 | No development areas | Appears unaware |
| 16 | Defensive reactions | Damaged relationships |
| 17 | Not asking questions | Missed career guidance |
System Configuration
| # | Mistake | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| 18 | Sequential without buffer | Compressed timelines |
| 19 | Poor required field setup | Missing or junk data |
| 20 | Inconsistent visibility | Unproductive interviews |
Navigation
- Previous: Best Practices
- Next: Quick Reference
- Back to: Documentation Index