Today we’re joined by Sofia Khaira, a specialist in diversity, equity, and inclusion, to explore a fundamental shift in how we approach performance management. Recent research from Cornell University has challenged the decades-old practice of using numerical ratings, suggesting that a simple narrative might be the key to unlocking fairer and more effective employee development. This conversation will delve into why numbers can undermine employee morale, how to construct meaningful narrative feedback, and the complex challenge of balancing developmental goals with administrative needs like promotions and compensation. We’ll explore the psychological impact of being rated, the risks of opaque decision-making, and when a hybrid approach to reviews might still be the best path forward.
Recent studies with over 1,600 employees show they perceive narrative-only feedback as the fairest format. From your perspective, why do even mid-range numerical ratings or combined formats often create a sense of unfairness, and what are the essential elements of a narrative review that feels genuinely developmental?
It’s a fascinating and very human reaction. The research shows that when you attach a number to someone’s performance, it immediately feels evaluative rather than developmental. Even a decent, mid-range score can make an employee feel negatively judged because it highlights their perceived weaknesses in a very stark, quantifiable way. People see a number and feel like they’ve been given a final grade, which can be incredibly disheartening. A truly fair and developmental narrative review, on the other hand, shifts the focus entirely. It’s built on providing context, focusing on specific behaviors and outcomes, and creating a forward-looking plan. The core elements are a clear understanding of what went well, specific examples of areas for growth, and an actionable roadmap for how to get there, all delivered in a supportive, coaching-oriented tone.
When employees receive a numerical rating without context, they often have no idea how to improve. How can managers craft narrative feedback that provides that clear, actionable roadmap for growth, and what are the most common mistakes you see them make in the process?
This is the central challenge and opportunity. A number is a dead end; a narrative is a doorway. To create a real roadmap, managers must move beyond generic praise or criticism. The feedback needs to be specific, behavioral, and tied to impact. For example, instead of saying “You need to be more proactive,” a manager should say, “In the Q2 project, I noticed you identified a potential roadblock and developed a solution before it became a problem. I’d love to see you apply that same foresight to our upcoming client launch.” The biggest mistake I see is when managers write a narrative that still feels like it’s just justifying a hidden score. The language becomes accountability-focused, and employees can sense that. The goal isn’t to justify a rating; it’s to genuinely help the person grow.
Drilling down on that psychological component, why does a number, even a decent one, feel more like a final judgment than a tool for development? What specific language can managers use in narratives to foster a growth mindset instead?
A number feels like a label. It distills a year’s worth of complex, nuanced work into a single, cold digit. As one of the lead researchers, Emily Zitek, pointed out, if someone performed at an “OK” level, they’re going to feel much worse about it if you slap a number on it. It’s a full stop. To foster a growth mindset, the language must be about evolution and potential, not just a summary of past events. Managers should use phrases like, “An area I’m excited to see you develop is…” or “Building on your success with X, a great next step would be to focus on Y.” This language frames feedback as a continuous journey. It acknowledges contributions while clearly and kindly illuminating the path ahead, making the employee feel like a valued partner in their own development.
If a company gets rid of numbers, it can create real headaches for compensation and promotion decisions. What are the biggest risks of using “shadow rankings” or leaving these choices entirely to manager discretion, and how can organizations maintain transparency?
This is the primary reason we’re hesitant to recommend a complete and sudden overhaul. The risks are significant. If employees suspect that “ghost” or “shadow” numerical rankings are happening behind the scenes, you’ve just traded one problem for another. It can completely erode trust and lead to perceptions of favoritism or a lack of transparency, which feels even more unfair than the original system. To maintain fairness, organizations must be incredibly intentional. This could mean implementing structured calibration meetings where managers discuss their narrative-based assessments together to ensure consistency, or developing clear competency-based rubrics that guide both the feedback and the subsequent promotion and compensation decisions. Whatever the method, it has to be communicated clearly so employees understand how their growth and contributions translate into tangible outcomes.
The researchers themselves noted that the choice of feedback format doesn’t have to be absolute. In what specific scenarios might a combined numerical and narrative format be not just acceptable, but necessary? And how can a manager present that combined feedback to minimize negative feelings and keep the focus on development?
A combined format often becomes necessary when compensation, like raises or bonuses, is explicitly and directly tied to individual performance ratings. In these high-stakes situations, a number provides a clear, if blunt, administrative tool. The key to delivering this effectively lies in how the conversation is framed. A manager should position the number as one piece of a much larger puzzle—an organizational requirement for administering rewards. They can say something like, “The numerical score is a part of our formal process, but what I really want to focus on with you today is the narrative—your strengths, your growth, and where we go from here.” By dedicating the vast majority of the time and emotional energy to discussing the narrative feedback, the manager reinforces that the true purpose of the conversation is development, not just judgment.
What is your forecast for the evolution of performance reviews over the next five years, particularly regarding the balance between developmental feedback and administrative decision-making?
I believe we’ll see a continued and accelerating shift toward a bifurcated model. Organizations will increasingly separate the developmental conversation from the administrative one. The day-to-day and quarter-to-quarter focus will be on rich, narrative-based, continuous feedback that genuinely fosters growth and psychological safety. However, the administrative side—the part that determines compensation and promotions—will become more transparent and data-informed in its own right, relying on clearer rubrics and structured calibration processes to ensure fairness without a simple, and often misleading, annual performance score. The ultimate goal will be to create systems that can both nurture an employee’s potential and make sound, equitable business decisions, recognizing that a single format can rarely do both things well.
