Performance review

The earliest documented performance evaluation in American institutional history traces to the U.S. Army in 1813, when the Adjutant General distributed a letter requesting that regiments submit relative rankings of their officers by grade. The purpose was practical, helping to identify which officers to retain as the Army reduced its size after wartime expansion. Formal officer efficiency reports did not become systematic until the late nineteenth century, when Major General Emory Upton advocated a structured evaluation process combining fitness reports, peer evaluations, and board examinations.

The practice migrated into the civilian sector during the early twentieth century, driven by Frederick Taylor's scientific management movement and the expansion of large bureaucratic organizations that needed mechanisms for sorting, promoting, and compensating thousands of employees. By mid-century, the annual performance review had become a fixture of corporate life. Managers filled out standardized forms, assigned numerical ratings, and conducted uncomfortable one-on-one meetings that both parties dreaded.

Research on performance reviews has been consistently critical. Cognitive biases including recency bias, halo effects, and leniency inflation undermine the accuracy of ratings. A 2013 Army-wide study found that only about half of Army leaders believed personnel evaluations were accurate, and nineteen percent of survey respondents reported never receiving performance counseling despite it being mandatory. In the corporate world, companies including Adobe, Microsoft, and Deloitte have replaced or substantially redesigned their annual review processes, though the practice remains widespread.