Annual vs Quarterly Performance Reviews: Pros and Cons

The Evolving Landscape of Performance Reviews

Performance reviews are a cornerstone of talent management, but the way organizations conduct them is changing. For decades, the annual performance review, a once-yearly appraisal of an employee’s work, has been the standard. In recent years, however, many companies have started questioning this traditional approach. Some high-profile organizations like General Electric and Adobe have even overhauled their processes, shifting from yearly evaluations to more frequent check-ins or continuous feedback models. Such shifts raise an important question for HR leaders and business owners: should performance feedback be delivered once a year, or is a quarterly review cycle more effective?

Both annual and quarterly performance reviews come with distinct advantages and drawbacks. The best approach can depend on factors like company size, industry pace, and organizational culture. In this article, we’ll explore the pros and cons of annual vs. quarterly performance reviews, and provide guidance on how to choose the right review frequency for your organization’s needs.

An annual performance review is conducted once per year, typically encompassing a full 12 months of an employee’s performance. This format has long been the norm in many industries, in fact, a majority of companies still rely on yearly reviews as their primary appraisal method. Annual reviews often coincide with year-end goal setting, compensation decisions, or bonus determinations, making them a formal anchor point for evaluating employees.

Pros of Annual Reviews:

• Big-Picture Evaluation: Annual appraisals enable managers and employees to step back and discuss the “big picture” of performance over an extended period. This comprehensive view helps in identifying long-term trends, overall accomplishments, and areas of improvement that might not be obvious in shorter time frames. Employees get a chance to highlight their biggest achievements from the year and to share their broad personal and professional goals.
  
  
• Strategic Alignment: Yearly reviews often align with the organization’s annual business cycle. They provide an opportunity to connect individual performance with overall company results and strategy. Managers and staff can use the annual review to set goals for the next year that tie into the organization’s long-term objectives.
  
  
• Formal Documentation: Because they occur at a set time each year, annual reviews ensure that at least one documented performance discussion happens with every employee. This can be important for record-keeping, compliance, and making decisions about promotions, raises, or succession planning. The formality of the process can lend weight to the discussion and signal its importance.
  
  
• Lower Frequency (Less Administrative Load): From a purely scheduling standpoint, conducting reviews only once a year means fewer formal review meetings overall. For organizations with limited HR staff or very large employee bases, it may be more feasible to have one comprehensive review per employee each year rather than orchestrating multiple review cycles. Managers can focus their efforts on the annual review period, which some find more manageable than continuous check-ins.
  

Cons of Annual Reviews:

• Infrequent Feedback: The most common criticism of annual reviews is that they are too infrequent. Employees receive feedback on past performance long after events have occurred, which means opportunities to improve or course-correct might be missed. If an issue arose in March but isn’t formally addressed until December, that’s many months the employee could have been improving with proper feedback. This delay can hinder employee development and engagement.
  
  
• Backward-Looking & Recency Bias: Annual appraisals tend to focus on a look back at many months of work. Managers and employees may struggle to recall details from the early part of the year. There is a risk that the evaluation overemphasizes recent performance (the last project or last quarter) rather than reflecting the entire year. Important achievements from many months ago might be overlooked, and conversely a few recent mistakes might overshadow a year’s worth of good work.
  
  
• Stressful & Demotivating: The high stakes of a once-yearly review can make it a source of anxiety for both employees and managers. Employees often dread the “annual review” because so much discussion is packed into one meeting, including potential impacts on raises or career progression. Managers, too, can find it daunting to deliver a full year’s critique in one sitting. If not handled well, the process can leave employees feeling surprised or blindsided by criticisms that have built up over the year. (In one survey, a large percentage of millennial employees reported feeling unsure about their performance and even blindsided by annual evaluation feedback, indicating a lack of ongoing communication.)
  
  
• Time-Consuming Process: Annual reviews can be extremely time and paperwork-intensive. Managers must fill out lengthy evaluation forms, write detailed summaries, and often score employees on various competencies, for each person on their team. Studies have found that many managers spend well over 200 hours per year on preparing annual reviews for their teams. In large organizations, the cumulative time investment is enormous. (For example, Adobe calculated that their old annual review system was consuming about 80,000 hours of managers’ time each year, roughly the equivalent of 40 full-time employees dedicated solely to performance reviews!) This heavy administrative burden is often disproportionate to the value the feedback provides, especially if the feedback is too little, too late.
  
  
• One-Sided Communication: Traditional annual appraisals have a reputation for feeling like a one-way lecture. Managers might do most of the talking, delivering ratings or criticism, and employees are expected to listen and sign off on the review. Without frequent check-ins, employees may not feel comfortable raising concerns or coaching needs except during this formal meeting. This dynamic can result in employees leaving the meeting disengaged or unclear on how to improve. It also places a lot of responsibility on the employee to follow up on issues raised, without guaranteeing managerial support until the next year’s review.
  
  

It’s worth noting that many HR professionals have grown critical of the annual-only review format. Research has shown that a large proportion of managers and HR leaders do not find annual reviews in their traditional form to be an effective way to measure performance. For instance, in one poll over three-quarters of HR leaders said that yearly reviews alone do not provide an accurate picture of an employee’s contributions. High dissatisfaction with annual reviews has been a driving force behind the movement toward more frequent and dynamic performance management practices.

A quarterly performance review is conducted four times a year (roughly every three months, often at the end of each quarter). This approach is part of a broader trend towards continuous performance management and regular feedback loops. In a quarterly review system, managers and employees meet more often to discuss progress on goals, address challenges, and adjust objectives. Some organizations implement formal quarterly evaluations with documentation each time, while others treat quarterly check-ins more informally. This higher frequency model has gained popularity, especially in fast-paced industries and modern, agile organizations that value continuous improvement.

Pros of Quarterly Reviews:

• Timely, Ongoing Feedback: With reviews every few months, employees receive feedback while the memory of their work is still fresh. They can act on suggestions or correct issues immediately, in the next quarter’s projects, rather than waiting an entire year. This responsiveness helps employees improve continuously. Frequent feedback is strongly linked to higher employee engagement, workers tend to feel more supported and less in the dark about their performance. In fact, management studies suggest that employees who have regular (e.g., quarterly or even more frequent) performance conversations are far more likely to feel the process is fair and to stay motivated.
  
  
• Aligned with Business Goals: Many companies operate on a quarterly business cycle, setting quarterly sales targets, project milestones, or financial goals. Quarterly performance reviews naturally sync with this rhythm. Managers and team members can review how the employee’s work contributed to Q1 goals, then set new objectives for Q2, and so on. This alignment ensures individual goals stay relevant to the company’s evolving priorities throughout the year. It also breaks the annual strategy into shorter sprints, keeping everyone focused on near-term results that ladder up to annual outcomes.
  
  
• Less Information Lost Over Time: Because the review covers only a three-month span, it’s much easier for both employee and manager to remember specific accomplishments, challenges, and feedback points. Achievements (and issues) from the beginning of a quarter are still recent by the time of review. This reduces the recency bias problem and creates a more accurate cumulative picture when the time comes for a year-end summary. In essence, quarterly check-ins can make the final annual evaluation (if one is still done) more straightforward, managers can compile notes from four smaller reviews rather than start from scratch.
  
  
• Improved Coaching and Development: Quarterly meetings create a regular cadence of dialogue between managers and employees. This opens the door for managers to act more like coaches, providing ongoing mentorship rather than just delivering a verdict once a year. Employees, especially newer hires or those working on developing certain skills, greatly benefit from this frequent guidance. The consistent touchpoints also encourage employees to voice concerns or ask for support incrementally. Overall, a culture of continuous feedback and communication often accompanies the quarterly review model, which can boost trust and performance.
  
  
• Reduced Year-End Pressure: When feedback is spaced out across the year, each individual review carries a bit less weight than the single annual review. There are more opportunities to discuss performance, so one conversation is not the “make-or-break” assessment of the entire year. This can reduce the anxiety around reviews. If an employee had a challenging quarter, they know there’s an opportunity to course-correct in the next one. Similarly, managers don’t need to cram every discussion point into one huge session. The result can be a more relaxed, open dialogue in each review, instead of a high-pressure annual showdown.
  

Cons of Quarterly Reviews:

• Higher Frequency, More Time Overall: Conducting four review cycles a year means more total meetings and documentation than a single annual review. For managers with large teams, this can significantly increase workload. Without efficient tools or a streamlined process, quarterly reviews might become burdensome and time-consuming. Some HR departments worry that managers and employees could experience “review fatigue” if they are constantly preparing for or recovering from the latest evaluation. It’s crucial to ensure that each quarterly review is kept concise and focused, or the cumulative administrative effort could outweigh the benefits.
  
  
• Potential for Shallow or Redundant Evaluations: When reviews happen frequently, there’s a risk they turn into perfunctory check-ins that repeat similar feedback. If the time between reviews is short, an employee might not have had a chance to show significant improvement or progress on long-term goals, leading to repetitive conversations. Without careful planning, quarterly reviews might emphasize immediate objectives at the expense of discussing career development or big-picture aspirations. Organizations must guard against the process becoming a rote exercise every few months; each session should have a clear purpose (such as reviewing progress on specific quarterly goals, then setting the next) to avoid redundancy.
  
  
• Focus on Short-Term over Long-Term: A quarterly schedule naturally gravitates toward short-term performance metrics. There’s a danger that too much emphasis on quarter-by-quarter results could cause teams to lose sight of long-term development and strategic, year-long goals. For example, employees might concentrate on hitting targets for the next 3 months but neglect skills development or projects that don’t show immediate results. Companies using quarterly reviews should consciously include discussions of long-term objectives periodically (for instance, using one of the quarterly sessions to also revisit annual development goals) to ensure balance.
  
  
• Scalability Challenges for Large Organizations: For very large enterprises or any company where managers have many direct reports, increasing the frequency of formal reviews is a logistical challenge. Not all organizations have the capacity to hold comprehensive quarterly evaluations for every employee, the process could strain managers or HR systems if done without simplification. In such cases, some companies compromise by doing quarterly check-ins that are lighter (perhaps without extensive forms or ratings each time) or by focusing frequent reviews on certain groups (e.g. new hires or performance issues). However, limiting quarterly feedback only to select employees can create inconsistency and may leave seasoned employees feeling overlooked if they only get a formal review annually.
  
  
• Change Management and Buy-In: Moving from a long-established annual cycle to a quarterly one requires a mindset shift. Some managers or employees might initially resist more frequent reviews, seeing them as micromanagement or fearing they will be evaluated constantly. It takes effort to communicate the purpose (to support and coach, not to police) and to train managers to handle frequent feedback constructively. If quarterly reviews are implemented poorly, for example, if they feel like miniature “annual reviews” every time, heavy on critique and bureaucracy, they could backfire and hurt morale. Success with this model often depends on fostering a positive, continuous feedback culture alongside the procedural change.
  
  

It’s clear that quarterly reviews can deliver timely insights and boost engagement, but they require commitment and the right organizational context to work well. Many companies have found creative ways to make the process efficient, such as using simple templates, focusing each quarter on key priorities rather than every aspect of performance, or leveraging software to automate scheduling and tracking. When done with care, quarterly performance discussions can become a powerful tool for agility and employee growth.

Given the pros and cons, how should an organization decide between annual vs. quarterly reviews (or a mix of both)? The optimal performance review frequency depends on several factors unique to your business:

• Company Size and Resources: Consider how many employees you have and the capacity of your HR team and managers. A startup or mid-sized company might successfully implement quarterly reviews because managers have smaller teams and can devote time to regular coaching. In contrast, a large enterprise with thousands of employees may find a quarterly cycle overwhelming if each review is very elaborate. In big companies, it might be more realistic to do one annual review (for example, tied to compensation decisions) supplemented by lighter mid-year or quarterly check-ins. The key is finding a cadence that is sustainable. If managers are strained by the logistics of too many reviews, they may rush through them or provide less thoughtful feedback, defeating the purpose.
  
  
• Industry and Business Pace: The speed at which your business and industry operate is a crucial consideration. Fast-changing industries (like technology, digital marketing, startups, etc.) often benefit from more frequent feedback cycles. Goals and projects might pivot quarter to quarter in these environments, so regular performance dialogues help employees stay aligned with shifting priorities. On the other hand, in more stable or traditional industries where roles and objectives remain consistent over longer periods, an annual review combined with occasional informal feedback might suffice. For example, some manufacturing or public-sector organizations still favor annual appraisals because work patterns are steady and a yearly evaluation covers the necessary ground. Think about how quickly performance expectations evolve in your field, if the answer is “very quickly,” leaning towards quarterly (or at least more than once a year) can keep your team on track.
  
  
• Organizational Culture of Feedback: Every company has a different culture when it comes to communication and feedback. If your organization already encourages continuous, real-time feedback and has an open-door policy, you may effectively be getting the benefits of quarterly reviews without a formal process. In a highly transparent culture, employees and managers talk about performance issues or achievements routinely, which can make the annual review less dramatic (because nothing discussed is truly a surprise). In such cases, sticking with an annual review for the record, while informally checking in often, could work well. Conversely, if honest feedback is only given during formal reviews, increasing the frequency to quarterly might dramatically improve transparency and trust. A more frequent schedule can actually help build a culture of openness by normalizing the act of giving and receiving feedback. As you evaluate your options, ask: Do we discuss performance openly throughout the year, or do issues tend to surface only at review time? If it’s the latter, quarterly reviews or other frequent feedback mechanisms can be a game-changer for engagement.
  
  
• Purpose of the Review: Clarify what you want the performance review process to achieve. Is it primarily a tool for evaluation and making decisions about raises, promotions, or terminations? Or is it seen more as a development and coaching opportunity? Annual reviews have traditionally been tied to evaluative decisions (the rating often influences merit increases or bonuses). Quarterly reviews, on the other hand, are usually developmental, focusing on incremental improvement and goal adjustment. Some organizations choose to separate the two: for instance, they might keep an annual review that is linked to compensation, but introduce quarterly conversations that are developmental and not directly tied to pay. This approach can relieve some pressure, employees know the quarterly check-in is genuinely about helping them improve, not about a salary decision. Defining the purpose for each type of review can guide how often you need them. If your goal is to enhance performance continuously, more frequent feedback is essential. If your main goal is year-end appraisal for HR records, an annual process might be sufficient (though you’d want to supplement it with other feedback channels to avoid the downsides we discussed).
  
  
• Employee Preferences and Workforce Demographics: It’s also wise to consider what your employees (and managers) want. Increasingly, the workforce is made up of Millennials and Gen Z employees who crave regular feedback and mentorship. Surveys have shown that an overwhelming majority of employees, especially younger ones, prefer to receive feedback much more often than once a year. They tend to respond positively to timely praise and constructive input that helps them grow in their roles. If you’ve heard complaints in your company about the lack of feedback or unclear expectations, that’s a sign your review frequency might be too low. On the flip side, if employees feel overloaded with meetings or if managers report they don’t have enough time to provide quality feedback with the current frequency, you may need to adjust the approach (either by reducing frequency or by streamlining the process). Consider piloting a new cadence with a small group first or gathering input via an internal survey before a broad change. The goal is to find a rhythm that employees find helpful and motivating, not distracting or fear-inducing.
  
  
• Hybrid Approaches: Remember that choosing annual vs. quarterly is not strictly an either-or decision. Many organizations are adopting a hybrid performance management approach. This could mean having semi-annual (twice a year) reviews as a middle ground, or coupling an annual review with quarterly goal-setting sessions. Some companies have eliminated formal annual reviews entirely in favor of continuous feedback and very frequent one-on-ones, while others have kept the annual review but radically simplified it and increased informal feedback in between. For example, a company might decide: “We will do quick quarterly check-in meetings to discuss progress and set near-term goals, and also retain a year-end summary review for each employee that rolls up the year and informs compensation.” This kind of blended model can capture the best of both worlds, constant development plus a long-term assessment, if implemented thoughtfully. It’s important, however, in a hybrid model to ensure consistency and clarity so that employees know what each touchpoint is for.
  
  

Real-World Example, The Shift to Frequent Feedback

‍One of the often-cited case studies in this domain is Adobe’s transition away from annual reviews. Adobe realized that their traditional yearly appraisal system was consuming a massive amount of managerial time and leaving employees less motivated. In 2012 they abolished formal annual reviews and introduced a system of regular “check-in” conversations. The check-ins are flexible (no rigid forms to fill each quarter) but managers are expected to give ongoing feedback and coaching throughout the year. The results were striking: within a year of making this change, Adobe reported a significant drop (around 30%) in voluntary employee turnover. Employees were less likely to quit, presumably because they felt more engaged and supported by the continuous dialogue about their performance. Interestingly, Adobe also found that because managers were addressing performance problems in real time, involuntary departures (firing or managed exits of low performers) increased, meaning issues were handled promptly instead of festering until an annual review. This example underlines how moving to a frequent feedback model can improve retention and accountability, but it also shows that managers need to be equipped to have “tough discussions” more regularly. Not every organization will mirror Adobe’s experience, but many that have adopted quarterly or continuous reviews report better alignment and quicker improvement when compared to the old annual review system.

In contrast, some organizations have tried more frequent reviews and encountered challenges, such as supervisor burnout or employees feeling inundated with constant evaluations. The difference often comes down to execution. If quarterly reviews are implemented as heavy, bureaucratic events every time, they won’t be popular or effective. But if they are done as lightweight, focused conversations, supported by a culture that encourages feedback, they can lead to a more agile and high-performing workforce.

The decision on review cadence should be aligned with your company’s goals and capacities. You may even find it necessary to iterate and adjust over time. For example, you might start with semi-annual reviews and later decide to add quarterly check-ins once the organization is ready. Whichever route you choose, it’s critical to also invest in manager training (so that feedback is delivered constructively) and to communicate clearly with employees about how the process works. When employees understand that a new review schedule is meant to support their development, they are more likely to embrace it rather than fear it.

‍

In the debate between annual vs. quarterly performance reviews, there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Annual reviews offer a long-range lens and are practical for ensuring a formal evaluation happens, but they risk being out-of-touch with the day-to-day development of employees. Quarterly reviews provide timely course corrections and can energize performance management, yet they require an organizational commitment to frequent feedback and can introduce new challenges if not handled well.

For HR professionals and business leaders, the ultimate goal of any review process should be to improve employee performance, growth, and engagement in a way that also drives organizational success. That means the frequency of reviews should be chosen based on which approach (or combination of approaches) best facilitates open communication and continuous improvement in your environment. Some companies may discover that a hybrid approach, such as ongoing informal feedback coupled with a simplified annual summary, yields the best results. Others may fully replace the old annual appraisal with a modern system of quarterly or even monthly check-ins, especially as new HR technology tools make managing frequent feedback easier.

What’s most important is not to treat performance reviews as a perfunctory tick-box exercise, whether they occur yearly or quarterly. The quality of the conversation matters more than the date on the calendar. Managers should be encouraged to give meaningful, specific feedback and to set clear expectations, and employees should be empowered to ask questions and participate in the dialogue. If you opt for annual reviews, consider how you will keep the feedback flowing during the other 11 months of the year, perhaps through one-on-one meetings or mentorship programs. If you opt for quarterly reviews, ensure that these meetings don’t become rushed or repetitive, but rather each one adds value and builds on the last.

By understanding the pros and cons outlined above, you can design a performance review cadence that aligns with your company’s needs. Regularly revisit and refine the process as your organization grows or changes. Performance management is evolving, and it’s perfectly acceptable to evolve your approach with it. Whether annual, quarterly, or a mix of both, the end goal is the same: to help your people perform at their best and develop their talents, while keeping your business on track to meet its objectives. Achieving that goal may require finding the right balance in frequency, and when you do, you’ll create a review system that truly works for both employees and the enterprise.

FAQ

What are the main advantages of annual performance reviews?

They provide a big-picture evaluation over a year, align performance with company strategy, and offer formal documentation for HR purposes.

What are the drawbacks of quarterly reviews?

They can increase administrative workload, risk superficial evaluations, and potentially emphasize short-term results over long-term development.

How can a hybrid approach benefit performance management?

It combines regular informal feedback or check-ins with an annual review, balancing continuous development with long-term assessments.

Which companies are shifting away from annual reviews, and why?

Organizations like Adobe have moved to frequent check-ins to improve engagement, reduce turnover, and address performance issues promptly.

What factors should influence my choice of review frequency?

Consider company size, industry pace, organizational culture, review purpose, employee preferences, and available resources.