UpTrajectory Review

Susan Thompson's piece in Small Business Trends lays out a five-step framework for writing employee job reviews that actually drive development rather than just checking a compliance box. The approach starts with defining whether the review is meant for development, corrective feedback, or overall performance assessment, then moves through gathering both quantitative and qualitative data, structuring the review with specific examples, encouraging employee self-assessment, and documenting next steps with scheduled follow-ups. The article notes that nearly half of employees feel dissatisfied with performance reviews due to perceived unfairness, which underscores why a deliberate, transparent structure matters more than the form itself.

For a small-business operator, this is not an HR abstraction. Most small firms have no dedicated HR function, which means the owner or a frontline manager is writing reviews on top of everything else, often under time pressure and with no template. A poorly run review does real damage: it can demoralize a key employee, create legal exposure if documentation is inconsistent, or waste the one formal moment in the year when you have the employee's full attention. Thompson's emphasis on defining purpose upfront is especially useful for small teams, where a review can drift into a vague chat unless someone decides in advance whether this conversation is about a raise, a performance problem, or a growth plan.

What is genuinely useful here is the insistence on collecting data before writing a single sentence, including self-assessments and prior evaluations. Many managers write reviews from memory, which invites recency bias and the perception of unfairness that Thompson cites. We are somewhat skeptical, however, of the implication that a five-step process will resolve the deeper structural problem: annual reviews are widely criticized in management literature as too infrequent and too backward-looking to be effective on their own. Thompson's framework is solid for the review document itself, but operators should treat it as one tool inside a broader rhythm of ongoing feedback, not a substitute for it.

The second-order effects of doing this well are significant. Employees who see a clear, documented link between their work and the company's goals tend to stay longer, which reduces the recruitment and training costs that hit small businesses hardest. Conversely, a review process that feels arbitrary can push your best people toward larger competitors with more formal development tracks. There is also a legal dimension: consistent, documented reviews protect you if you ever need to justify a termination or defend against a discrimination claim. The cost of doing this properly is mostly time, perhaps two to three hours per employee across preparation, the conversation, and follow-up scheduling.

If you have not run structured reviews before, start with Thompson's first two steps this quarter: pick one employee, define the review's purpose in a single sentence, and gather three specific data points, including one metric and one piece of peer or customer feedback. Then schedule the conversation and commit to a follow-up check-in thirty days out. If you already have a review process, audit your last two cycles against Thompson's five steps and identify where you skipped the self-assessment or failed to document next steps. The follow-up meeting, not the review form, is where accountability actually lives.

“nearly half of employees feel dissatisfied with performance reviews due to perceived unfairness” — Small Business Trends

Takeaway: Define the review's purpose before writing anything, gather specific data including a self-assessment, and schedule a 30-day follow-up to make next steps stick.