Frequent, development-focused check-ins are replacing the annual review — and AI is playing a growing role in making it work, say HR leaders
The annual performance review has long been a fixture of Canadian workplace culture. But a growing number of human resources leaders say the traditional model of annual or mid-year reviews is becoming outdated — and that the fix lies not in tweaking the process, but in rethinking it entirely.
The defining principle of effective performance management is straightforward, according to Céline Maasland, Head of People and Culture at RVezy in Toronto.
“No one should ever get to one of those performance conversations and be shocked at the content and the themes of the conversation,” says Maasland. “If you always keep that in the back of your mind, you’re making it something that's more consistent throughout the year – no one should get to that chat and have no idea about the feedback they're given or about where they stand performance-wise.”
In fact, eight-in-10 employees who are satisfied with career and development check-ins say they’re always productive and three-in-four say they’re always engaged, according to the 2023 Betterworks State of Performance Enablement Report.
At RVezy, that means monthly performance discussions and separate quarterly development conversations — the two tracks designed to work in tandem, says Maasland. “They don't have to be crazy structured or overly complicated,” she says. “It's just setting aside that time once a month for people to actually talk about performance as a whole.”
Check-ins begin with a personal touch
For Brianna Madron, Director of People and Culture at DiveThru in Edmonton, every check-in template begins with the same first question: how are you, as a person, doing? “Really creating psychological safety and building relationships to make sure that folks are actually comfortable enough to say ‘I actually am not doing okay right now’ is really important,” says Madron. “Because that then ties into their performance and their ability to complete their tasks well.”
She also says that she approaches reviews from the perspective that people want to do their best work, even when someone is underperforming. “Coming at it from that lens of, “I think that you want to do great work, so how can I help you get there, as opposed to being like, ‘You did this wrong, you need to fix it,’” she says. “Really having a collaborative approach to helping folks problem solve, because ultimately, as a manager, my job is to remove roadblocks for people.”
Madron also says frequent check-ins – monthly for frontline staff, bi-weekly at the head office at DiveThru – make harder conversations meaningful and easier. “The more frequently you're meeting with someone, the easier it is to hold folks accountable,” she says. “When we have that base relationship, it makes it a lot easier to have those harder conversations.”
Simplicity as a performance management design principle
Lui Lanzillotta, Director of Human Resources at Burnac Produce in Woodbridge, Ont., is building a new performance management system in his organization from the ground up – one that combines formal mid-year and annual reviews with monthly scorecards to combat recency bias.
“Things happen over the course of even six months and you're not going to remember what the person did in month one or two,” says Lanzillotta. “So you end up suffering from that recency bias when you're going to assess that person.”
His new system at Burnac targets one-to-two pages covering four technical outcomes and two-to-four competency measures, according to Lanzillotta. “I've seen over the years these extensive multi-page performance reviews where the employee just gets lost in the administration and the manager doesn’t want to take the time to even complete it,” he says. “The administrative burden ends up having a negative impact on the overall conversation.”
Maasland agrees: “If you add too many layers to something, people might see it as too complex and just not put the time into it,” she says. “You really just have to make sure that the time is allocated and people have some sort of guideline about what they should be discussing.”
More frequent check-ins such as what Maasland calls “development conversations” at RVezy, also help employees and managers keep on top of the employee’s development path. “The manager then has that baseline of knowing this employee is really ambitious and wants to be promoted to a manager by end of the year, but when I'm looking at their performance, I have to keep that in the back of my mind and think about is what they're doing good enough to get them there or how can I help them?” she says.
Where AI fits — and where it falls short
All three leaders see a role for artificial intelligence (AI) in the review cycle, but they’re careful about where they draw the line.
For Madron, the most immediate value has come from AI note-taking tools. "I can be more present, because my AI is taking my notes for me and then afterwards I go in and make sure everything looks good,” she says, adding that removing that administrative burden makes it easier to commit to frequent conversations.
Maasland sees particular value in using AI to support newer managers. "Using AI in performance discussions really helps them to maybe approach their feedback in a way that’s more constructive,” she says. But she’s firm about the limits. “I wouldn't want to see companies relying totally on AI to provide performance feedback and discussions, as you're missing important context about the interpersonal pieces of growth, learning and development, and especially growing within an organization."
AI's potential is through system design, according to Lanzillotta, with managers entering real-time observations in seconds, building a continuous record that makes formal reviews more objective. “It reduces the burden on HR having to be that service provider and essentially take on new tasks,” he says.
The ethics of AI in performance management
Maasland, Madron, and Lanzillotta agree that transparency and data governance is non-negotiable in performance management processes. Maasland cautions against entering personally identifying information into AI platforms and says managers should be honest when AI has helped shape their feedback. Madron informs employees at the start of every check-in that an AI note-taker is active, and she gives them the option to decline. "I think that awareness piece and letting them know is really important,” she says, suggesting that HR leaders verify where platform data is stored, how long it’s retained, and whether it meets Canadian privacy requirements.
“You definitely have to be transparent with the employees that ‘I'm using this to brainstorm,’ but I think that's where you have to make that distinction of making sure that a human is still doing it,” says Maasland. “It crosses the line to have AI run a full performance evaluation and the manager doesn't actually add any of their output or their thoughts – that's a slippery slope and what I'd want to avoid.”
Lanzillotta argues that regular, documented feedback inherently improves fairness. “If employees are receiving feedback on a regular basis, they understand at any point in time objectively where they stand,” he says. “In the absence of those meetings, employees may think they're doing well and they're never sure.”
The tools — AI note takers, scorecards, human resources information system platforms — are enablers for performance management, but the foundation is regular reviews and check-ins with humans, says Maasland.
"If you're having conversations just to have them but there's no value at the end, then what's the point?” she says. “It has to lead to something. There has to be some feeling of growth and development from the employee, or follow-through from the managers."
Lanzillotta agrees with the importance of human feedback at the centre of performance management. “For me, it's all about the reaction – if we can improve the reaction and the experience, then we understand that the people initiatives are working,” he says. “It's eliminating administration and increasing a focus on the leadership side of it.”
