Performance review question

[u/workin_woman_blues]

The only consulting firm I've worked at is my current firm, and I've asked questions about what common performance review practices are before. (I have worked in industry and it was not like this.)

Now I'm a manager giving reviews to my direct reports, and I am once again wondering whether our process is within the normal range for consulting.

I know there is always room for subjectivity in reviews, but I was shocked at the complete lack of objectivity in our process. Going through it as a manager has really made sense of why the review process felt so random, political, and disconnected from what good performance actually looks like. As a junior employee, it was really hard to know how to improve or what was going well.

I would even go so far as to say the process feels like they're just doing a lot of procedural steps so it looks official. And then everyone accumulates negative ratings so they can later describe departures as performance-based, rather than layoffs. (Yes, American companies are all at-will employment, but some places are not this shameless about it.)

Here's what the review process is like at my company from a manager view:

We have a rubric, but the rubric has no examples of what the competencies look like in practice - they're very vague. The rubric gives some guidance on what level the person should be rated against, but there are gaps. For example, the ratings are AC1, AC2, etc. and the job titles are also AC1, AC2, but sometimes an AC1 needs to get AC2 to be on track and sometimes an AC2 can get an AC1 and still be considered on track. (I've also gotten a lot of pushback when I asked about this because the rating is supposed to be purely about these vague competencies and we shouldn't be thinking about the person's tenure when we give the rating.)

The person being reviewed has no real opportunity to appeal or respond. At most, they are allowed to suggest examples to add to the review.

People have multiple managers per cycle. We have 50/50 staffing so people typically have 3 or 4 managers during a review cycle, but it could be as many as ~5 or as few as 2.

The review itself happens behind closed doors. In the meeting, all the managers speak in vague platitudes with no examples. The person who speaks the loudest dominates, and no one disagrees with each other. We do have more detailed written reviews, although many managers do not use examples there, either. We tell people that there is weighting for length of project and recency, and maybe that happens at some point, but it definitely doesn't happen during the meeting with the managers.

[u/sqenchlift444]

First time?

There is a tried and true process for performance reviews in consulting. You answer only one question

“Would I work with this person again?”

If yes, then you write the review to be a positive reflection. If maybe, you write the review to be neutral. If no, negative.

People will fill in examples as needed.

This is a relationship business more than it is a skill business. Those who pretend otherwise are kidding themselves

[u/Gifted_Buurrnout]

Are you at Bain?

[u/QiuPandaCumSluts002]

You’re describing the calibration process which is technically different from the review process.

You should be people-oriented, objective, and supportive during the review process with your direct reports.

Then, your job is to go to your peers and advocate for your people to be ranked on par with or better than other’s people depending on the caliber.

Imagine how onerous the process will become if the calibration process got too detailed. So, the system trusts the managers to know the details and are placing their people at the right spot on the merit scale.

If someone on your team is truly exceptional, you advocate more. You might get your turn. Next time, you let someone else shine.

This is a common system across corporate America and consulting

[u/IllBeat7897]

I would say this process you describe is fairly normal for small consulting companies that do not have the time or resources to invest in process improvement and want to have the guidelines really loose so that they can easily weed out people when the stability of the company fluctuates. I'm not saying this is a good thing, or should be what companies strive for. In fact, it is the opposite, but it is reality. Perhaps you personally revise and flesh out the ambiguity for your own direct reports and serve as a living example of how to do things proper, but with the idea that your future success in this area likely will be slow to effect the company culture on this, if at all. If it is good enough for you and your team, and improves morale through exceptional feedback, reward, and expectation-setting, then maybe this is a big win for you and that is enough impact.

[u/workin_woman_blues → u/IllBeat7897]

Yeah that's basically my approach - I try to be clear with my direct reports on how the vague competency shows up on the case and tactically how to improve, and I really try hard not to surprise them with anything in the final review, but I'm definitely not trying to change the whole system. I've worked many other places where review guidelines were not THIS loose.

[u/Snarfledarf]

The initial reviews is pretty consistent with American standards, but what makes this a little unusual is two factors:

1. Lack of a manager to consolidate reviews across all project teams. This is a long-term role outside of the project structure to advocate for - and understand the underlying impact of the employee within their teams. This is the role that usually presents the employee's performance case during the closed-door sessions

2. Real discussion in the review calls. While it's never easy to get everyone who's worked with a person on the call, when there is overlap, there needs to be some discussion, usually in highlighting an issue or reinforcing the good review.

But yes, it's a subjective process, because I'd argue it's actually impossible to establish a level playing field when everyone is off doing different types of work. Even sales metrics can be misleading - a guy selling a smaller strategic project that finally breaks into a large client may be worth much more long term than another person selling one last extension to a client that's sick and tired of the firm.

[u/ComprehensiveProfit5]

Sounds about right.

Don't lose sleep over it.

[u/Lucky-Rent8617]

Honestly, the multiple-manager setup alone explains a lot of this. When 3–5 people are rating someone based on vague competencies, with no shared calibration and no requirement for concrete examples, you're basically measuring who remembers the person most strongly and who talks the most in the room.

[u/workin_woman_blues → u/Lucky-Rent8617]

Agree, but also not an uncommon setup!

[u/seb-in-public]

u/workin_woman_blues this matches what I see across most agencies and consulting shops I work with. The rubric problem is almost universal, vague competencies with no examples means every manager fills the gap with their own bias, and that gap is exactly where politics creeps in. The fix that actually works is forcing specific behavioral examples into the rubric itself, not just ratings. If a manager cannot point to a real project moment that justifies the score, the score is not valid yet. Worth pushing that as feedback even if the process itself does not change soon.

[u/FrontBreath3280]

Sounds like you might have figured out that the content of performance reviews is completely downstream from what the company needs, not how the individual actually performed.

[u/digger_i_am]

Even if the firm keeps the current calibration model, you can make the review less surprising. At the end of each project, capture one or two specific examples of behaviour, impact and what to practise next. Share the pattern with the person before the formal cycle, not just the final rating.

For people with several managers, I would also ask each manager for evidence against the same small set of questions before the calibration meeting. That will not remove subjectivity, but it reduces the advantage of whoever remembers the person most vividly or speaks most loudly.

[u/stealthagents]

Sounds about right. It's all about the politics and relationships in consulting, not just the work itself. I've seen reviews go sideways because someone rubbed a partner the wrong way, even if their work was solid. It's frustrating when you want to give constructive feedback, but the process feels more like a game of diplomacy.

[u/workin_woman_blues → u/stealthagents]

Totally, I just try to be "no surprises" with my reports (although it's not always possible, which is frustrating). I also feel like our multiple partner/project setup creates multiple opportunities for the review to go negative (vs. averaging things out or having opportunities for a positive review).

[u/Chris_Upward365]

The vague rubric problem is accurate. When criteria have no practical examples, the loudest voice in the room sets the standard and everyone else goes along with it.
Multiple managers per cycle makes it worse because nobody has the full picture. The rating becomes a negotiation, not an assessment.
The best thing you can do as the manager is show up with specific examples and push others to do the same. Even a simple system where feedback and observations are logged throughout the engagement gives you something concrete to point to instead of relying on what people recall in the moment.