Performance management is the ongoing work of clarifying expectations, supporting delivery and reviewing results fairly. An annual appraisal is one part of that work, not the whole system. For managers, the practical challenge is to connect organisational priorities with responsibilities that employees understand and can influence, then use evidence and regular conversations to improve performance.
A global indicator of the management challenge
Gallup’s State of the Global Workplace 2026 reports that 20% of employees globally were engaged in 2025, compared with 21% in 2024. Manager engagement declined from 27% to 22%. The report’s 2025 data includes 141,444 employed respondents. These are global findings, not UAE-specific rates or a forecast of the results of a performance programme. They provide context for examining management practices within your own organisation. Source: Gallup, 2026
Start with the role and the outcome
A useful objective describes the result required, the conditions that matter and the employee’s contribution. Before setting a target, check that the role has the authority, resources and information needed to influence it. An employee cannot reasonably own an outcome controlled entirely by another department.
Use the job description to clarify responsibilities, but do not turn every recurring task into a separate target. Select the outcomes that matter most during the review period. Explain how they relate to the team’s work and where cooperation with others is necessary.
Distinguish management from appraisal
CIPD describes performance management as a continuing process rather than an isolated event. Regular discussion allows expectations, support and feedback to remain relevant as work changes. Formal appraisal can summarise the period, but it should not be the first time an employee hears about an important concern.
The appropriate rhythm depends on the work. A new assignment may need frequent check-ins, while established work may need less frequent review. Choose a rhythm that supports decisions and problem-solving instead of creating meetings whose only purpose is to complete a form.
Balance results, quality and behaviour
A single output measure can encourage the wrong trade-off. If a service team is assessed only on the number of cases closed, employees may close cases before the customer’s problem is resolved. Pair volume with relevant quality evidence and examine the conditions in which work is delivered.
| Dimension | Illustrative evidence | Question for the review |
|---|---|---|
| Results | Accepted outputs or completed commitments | Was the intended outcome achieved? |
| Quality | Rework, checks or customer feedback | Was the work delivered to the agreed standard? |
| Collaboration | Specific examples of handovers and support | Did behaviour help the wider team deliver? |
| Development | Application of an agreed new skill | Has capability improved in practice? |
These are examples, not universal targets. Define each measure, its source, the review period and any exclusions. Avoid numerical precision that the underlying evidence cannot support. For complex work, a reasoned qualitative assessment may be more useful than an artificial score.
Agree expectations and record changes
Discuss the objectives with the employee and confirm understanding. Explain what good performance looks like, what support is available and how progress will be reviewed. Where priorities conflict, identify which takes precedence rather than expecting the employee to satisfy incompatible demands.
If a project changes, update the expectations and record why. Do not judge an employee against an obsolete target without considering the changed scope or constraints. Equally, avoid rewriting the target at the end simply to fit the result. A dated record makes the discussion more transparent.
Use check-ins to remove obstacles
A productive check-in asks what has progressed, what is blocked and what action is needed. Discuss specific examples close to the event. Feedback should describe the observed behaviour or output and its effect, then allow the employee to explain relevant context and propose an improvement.
Managers also need to examine the system around the employee. Unclear priorities, unavailable tools, delayed approvals and unrealistic workloads can affect performance. Distinguish a capability gap from a process problem before prescribing training. Agree actions for the manager as well as for the employee where appropriate.
A practical review example
Consider a fictional customer-support role where response time improved but repeat contacts increased. Celebrating speed alone could conceal incomplete answers. The manager and employee might review a sample of cases, clarify the definition of resolution and identify whether guidance or system access needs improvement.
For example, the employee could check that each reply answers the customer’s question and records the next step, while the manager resolves missing system permissions and arranges coached practice. Agree who will complete each action and set a follow-up date. At that review, compare response times alongside answer quality and repeat contacts for comparable case types, using the same definitions and observation period. Check whether the promised support was actually provided before attributing a remaining gap to the employee.
The plan should protect answer quality while improving speed. A faster response is not sufficient evidence of improvement if the customer still needs to return for an unresolved issue. This fictional example illustrates a review discussion, not an ATMACSS client result or a universal target. A dashboard should prompt investigation rather than deliver an automatic judgement about an individual.
Make formal reviews evidence-based and fair
Use evidence from the whole review period, not only recent events. Ask for the employee’s perspective and distinguish documented examples from general impressions. Where several managers apply a rating system, compare how they interpret the criteria so that similar evidence is treated consistently.
Calibration should improve the consistency of judgement, not force employees into a predetermined distribution without justification. Give employees a clear way to question factual errors and understand the outcome. Handle personal performance information through the organisation’s appropriate access and retention arrangements.
Connect development and recognition carefully
Agree development actions that relate to the work: coached practice, a relevant assignment, clearer guidance or targeted learning. State how the new capability will be used and reviewed. Course attendance alone does not demonstrate that performance has improved.
If reviews influence rewards, explain the relationship and the applicable criteria. Keep recognition specific to contributions and avoid rewarding behaviour that undermines quality or teamwork. The rewards and recognition guide explores these design choices in more detail.
Improve the management routine with ATMACSS
Bring your role profiles, current objectives, review forms and recurring management challenges to a discussion about Corporate Training, Coaching & Internship with ATMACSS. Start with one team and examine whether expectations, evidence and conversations support better work. Expand only after the routine is practical and understood.