Annually in my first 35 years in ministry I had spent hours preparing and delivering multiple staff performance reviews. I was shocked to learn that I may have been wasting my time.

In a meta-study (a study of the studies) researchers discovered that only 30 percent of feedback and performance reviews actually helped (Kluger & DeNisi,1996). They discovered that 30 percent have no impact and 40 percent actually make things worse, not a very good track record. Does that mean we should drop performance reviews?

No. It does mean that we can improve the performance review process by incorporating 7 neuroscience keys in our reviews.

I’ve divided the 7 C’s into these two categories.

The person: issues that directly relate to the person who’s receiving the review and the reviewer as well.

The process: issues that directly relate to the process itself.

The person

1. Community: Make sure that the person receiving the review feels emotionally connected to you as much as possible. Try to build a sense of community with those you review (Ibarra, 1999).
2. Coachability: Before the review, help your staff develop a coaching/learner mentality. Help them see the value of feedback and reviews. The more value they see, the more positively they will receive it (Atwater & Brett, 2005).
3. Connected: Help the staff person connect the feedback she receives to how she sees herself in the future (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996) and to her larger goals (Ashford et al., 2003).

The process

1. Credible: Make sure you as the supervisor are unbiased and fully informed about the staff person’s job and performance before the review (Waldman et al., 1998).
2. Coupled: This is key. You must couple the review to follow up, ideally through a coaching process. Build into the process action steps to address areas that need improvement, all with a developmental rather than a punitive tone. Also, couple the process to a teaching session before the review to help staff understand the review process and how to get the best from it.
3. Consistent: Make sure that the process elicits consistent feedback from all sources giving input to reviews (Ashford et al., 2003).
4. Collaborative: The more collaborative the process, the more effective it will be. If possible, include in the process peers, direct reports, and supervisors. (London & Smither, 1995).

Try applying some of these ideas the next time you do a staff review and see how it helps.

In one of my books, Brain-Savvy Leaders: the Science of Significant Ministry, I give many more leadership insights we learn from recent neuroscience findings.