Performance reviews become unusually important during change because they translate the change from a project message into day-to-day expectations. If employees hear that a new system, process, structure, or customer promise matters, but their goals and feedback still reward old behaviors, adoption will stall. Performance management is intended to align employee performance with organizational goals and includes objectives, feedback, development, accountability, and reviews [CIPD, 2026]. (cipd.org)

This action is a facilitated live engagement and learning intervention. It brings senior leaders, team leaders, HR, change leads, and project leads together to align how performance reviews will support the change. The goal is not to turn reviews into a compliance exercise. It is to equip team leaders to hold fair, consistent, supportive, change-aligned conversations that reinforce adoption, surface barriers, and identify where employees need help. Prosci’s people-manager model describes managers as communicators, liaisons, advocates, resistance managers, and coaches during change [Prosci, 2021]. (prosci.com)

Use this action when a change affects what good performance now looks like. That may include new objectives, workflows, customer measures, digital tools, decision rights, compliance requirements, collaboration norms, or leadership behaviors. CIPD notes that performance can include task performance, contextual contribution, and adaptive performance, including how employees respond to change and support innovation [CIPD, 2026]. (cipd.org)

The action is best used before mid-year or year-end reviews, shortly before go-live, after early adoption data shows inconsistent behavior, or when team leaders are asking how to distinguish genuine underperformance from change-related barriers. It is especially valuable where resistance is present, because immediate supervisors are close enough to understand local concerns and help employees through the individual change journey [Prosci, 2021]. (prosci.com)

Do not use this action to force adoption without support. Feedback can improve performance, but CIPD’s evidence review warns that feedback can also be detrimental when it is poorly delivered [CIPD, 2022]. (cipd.org)

Prepare the session as a working alignment meeting, not as a presentation. The core inputs are the change impact assessment, updated role or process expectations, adoption metrics, benefits case, review-cycle dates, HR performance policy, known resistance themes, training completion data, and any unresolved system or process issues. PMI emphasizes that change activity should support adoption, integration, use, transition, sustainment, and benefits realization, so the review discussion should connect directly to the benefits the change is intended to deliver [PMI, 2013]. (pmi.org)

Invite the executive sponsor, HR business partner, project owner, change manager, impacted team leaders, and any people managers who will conduct reviews. Decide in advance which behaviors are now expected, which goals or measures are changing, what managers should not penalize because it is outside employee control, and what issues must be escalated rather than handled as performance problems.

Materials should include a one-page leader message, review conversation guide, adoption-behavior examples, FAQ, issue log, rating or calibration principles, and two or three realistic conversation scenarios. Schedule the session two to four weeks before review conversations begin, with a 30-day follow-up after the first reviews.

A customer service organization is implementing a new CRM and revised case-handling process. Early data shows that some agents still use spreadsheets because the CRM search function is slow. The change manager convenes a 90-minute leader-supported review session before mid-year reviews.

The sponsor explains that the change is intended to improve customer visibility and reduce rework. HR clarifies that employees should be assessed on learning effort, correct use of the new process, data quality, and customer follow-through, but not penalized for documented system latency. Team leaders practise how to say: “Your customer care remains strong. The performance gap is that cases are still being tracked outside the CRM, which means other teams cannot see the full history. Let’s agree what support you need and when we will review progress.”

The issue log shows that three teams lack role-specific job aids. The project team commits to producing them within one week. The performance review cycle therefore becomes a feedback loop into adoption, not just a judgment point.

Measure whether the action improved both leader readiness and employee adoption. Useful indicators include attendance by required leaders, manager confidence before and after the session, percentage of managers using the agreed message guide, consistency of review themes across teams, number and age of unresolved adoption issues, quality of documented goals, employee understanding of new expectations, completion of agreed development actions, and movement in adoption metrics such as system usage, process compliance, customer outcomes, or error reduction.

Also monitor unintended consequences. A spike in grievances, attrition risk, employee relations cases, or negative sentiment may indicate that reviews are being experienced as punishment rather than support. PMI’s benefits-realization guidance is a reminder to compare actual benefits with the original intent, not merely to confirm that reviews occurred [PMI, 2013]. (pmi.org)

Message outline for managers: “This review is about performance and support during the change. We will discuss what has changed, what you are already doing well, where the new expectations are not yet being met, what support or clarity you need, and what actions we will each take next.”