The pandemic forced leaders to reconcile with the need for effective hybrid and remote team management strategies, including performance evaluations. Research has shown the benefits of moving away from large-scale quarterly or annual performance reviews. Instead, successful organizations favor systematic, frequent, and brief reviews focused on performance, feedback and coaching, and guidance in decision-making. Leaders should also benchmark best practices on performance evaluation for hybrid and remote team management.

Performance evaluation in the new normal

Too many managers and companies still rely on “time in the office” as a primary measure of evaluating performance. This has led employees to focus more on “time logged on” than their actual contribution to the company.

As survey responses show, many employees and top leaders are concerned about the possibility of hybrid and remote work undermining their career growth. To allay these concerns, employee performance evaluation systems need to stop relying on time worked.

The companies I helped guide through this transition shifted to regular, usually weekly or biweekly, performance evaluations of team members by team leaders. Some also added an occasional 360-degree evaluation component by one’s teammates and other stakeholders every month or two.

The weekly performance evaluation takes place during brief check-in and review meetings of 15–30 minutes for each team member with their team leader. Then, 24 hours before each meeting, the employee submits a concise report, containing:
• Top three to five individual or collaborative task accomplishments for the past week, compared to what they had planned to accomplish
• Challenges experienced in achieving their goals for the week
• Measures to address these challenges and future plans in similar scenarios
• Measures to improve professional development against goals that the employee agreed to with the team leader during the quarterly review
• A numerical self-evaluation of their performance for the week in all of these areas, typically on a range of 0–4 (0 = greatly below expectation, 1 = somewhat below expectations, 2 = meeting expectations, 3 = somewhat exceeding expectations, 4 = greatly exceeding expectations)
• Their plans for next week’s top three accomplishments, addressing challenges, professional growth, and any other relevant plans for next week

The supervisor then responds to the report in writing at least two hours before the meeting. That involves:
• Comparing and assessing the accomplishments for this week against the plan from the prior week
• Evaluating how the team member addressed any challenges remaining from the past week, as well as new ones arising this week
• Assessing their professional growth against previously set goals for the quarter
• Approving or suggesting revisions to the employee’s plans for the next week
• Either approval of the employee’s self-evaluation or suggestions that they discuss it at the weekly meeting

During the check-in meeting, the team leader and member discuss anything that needs to be clarified from the report. The leader coaches the employee as needed on improving their ability to accomplish weekly goals, address challenges, make the best decisions, cultivate relationships effectively, and grow professionally.

The supervisor also addresses any issues surrounding the self-evaluation, revising it up or down. They explain their reasoning, give the employee a chance to respond, and then the supervisor makes the final call.

This rating is fed into the team member’s quarterly performance report. The report is largely determined by the weekly evaluations, which make up anywhere from 60–80% of the employee’s final score for the quarter. Team evaluations account for 20%, and the supervisor also gives an overall score for the quarter, which makes up the remaining 20%.

With this system, each employee remains aware of their performance and areas of improvement, both in their tasks and professional growth. Problems can be mitigated earlier rather than blindsiding team members during their quarterly review. Thanks to team members’ proximity to supervisors a couple of days per week—as opposed to a total remote-work approach—this system not only maximizes productivity but also minimizes turnover and concerns about career growth. 

Conclusion

Performance evaluations are a key indicator of any office’s productivity levels. Yet the old style of performance evaluation simply doesn’t work in hybrid and remote team management. To address this issue, leaders need to adopt research-based best practices for performance reviews to ensure that employee productivity remains high for all hybrid or full-time remote working employees.