Latest / New Manager Conversations with Fexingo: First 90 Days, Managing Former Peers, and Leadership Basics / How New Managers Can Navigate Their First Performance Review Cycle
Transcript
- Lucas: It is late June, which means a lot of companies are closing out their fiscal first half or heading into mid-year reviews. If you became a manager in the last twelve months, you are about to write your first performance reviews as a reviewer, not as a recipient. And that shift is harder than most new managers expect. Luna: I remember my first time. I spent hours writing thoughtful paragraphs, and then my HR partner basically redlined everything. It felt like a rewrite of the whole thing. Lucas: Exactly, and that is what we want to get ahead of today. Not the general philosophy of feedback, but the mechanical and psychological traps that show up when you actually sit down to assign a rating and write a narrative. Three traps in particular: recency bias, anchoring on your own rating history, and the averaging problem. Luna: Recency bias I get. You remember the last two weeks more vividly than the last six months. But what is the anchoring trap for a new manager? Lucas: It is the tendency to anchor on your own past ratings as a benchmark. If you were rated a three out of five for three years running, you subconsciously treat three as the default middle. So when you have a solid performer who is doing B-plus work, you give them a three because that feels normal. But in a lot of companies, three is already above average, not the middle. You end up compressing everyone toward whatever number you personally received. Luna: So you are grading against your own history instead of against the company's actual distribution curve. That makes sense. And the averaging problem? Lucas: That is when a manager takes a person who had one standout project and three average months and gives them a rating that splits the difference. Instead of reflecting the overall contribution, they average the highs and lows. The problem is, most performance systems are looking for a holistic judgment, not a mathematical mean. A project that moved the needle should lift the rating; a quiet quarter should not drag it down equally if the person was in a support role. Luna: Right, because averaging can actually penalize someone who had a huge impact early and then did steady work. It flattens the story. Lucas: And that is exactly what kills trust. When a team member sees a review that feels like a shrug, they assume you don't see their contribution. So how do you avoid that? One specific practice that comes from a company I worked with: before you write any narrative, pull up the person's past two reviews — the ones written by their previous manager. Read them for patterns. If they had a goal around 'improve stakeholder communication' last cycle and it is still flagged this cycle, you know it is a persistent issue, not a new one. If their prior manager praised their execution but noted they avoided conflict, you watch for that too. Luna: So you are calibrating against the person's own trajectory, not just against your expectations. That is pretty practical. Lucas: And then, when you actually write, do not write all your reviews in one sitting. Write them in batches of three or four. Because the first review you write will unconsciously set a standard that drifts by the time you get to the tenth one. If you write review one and it is generous, and review ten is strict, you have a fairness problem. So batch, take a break, come back. Luna: I like that. But before we go deeper, can I ask about something that comes up a lot with newer managers? The self-review. Should you coach your report on what to write before they submit it? Lucas: Short answer: yes, but carefully. If you coach them too much, you are basically writing their self-review for them and it loses credibility. But if you give zero guidance, they might undersell themselves or miss the key achievements you actually care about. My rule of thumb: tell them the three areas you plan to evaluate on, and ask them to write concrete examples for each. That way their self-review is aligned with your framework, but the examples are theirs. Luna: That is a good middle ground. And it also surfaces things you might have missed. They might bring up a cross-team project you did not track. Lucas: Exactly. And that brings us to the calibration meeting itself. If your company does a formal calibration — where managers sit in a room and defend their ratings — here is the thing most new managers mess up: they talk about the person's output first. They say, 'Sarah shipped the Q2 platform update.' The room nods. But then the second manager says, 'I worked with Sarah on that. She was difficult to collaborate with — missed stand-ups, slow to respond.' Now your rating looks inflated because you only told half the story. So before calibration, ask a peer who worked with your report for their honest take. Not their manager, a peer. That way you walk in with the complete picture. Luna: That is smart. It protects you from the halo effect — you only see the good because you like them or because you only see their work. Lucas: And the halo effect is real. There is actually a well-known study from the 1970s where researchers showed that a single positive trait — like physical attractiveness — inflated ratings on unrelated dimensions. In the workplace, if someone is charismatic in meetings, it is very easy to rate their strategic thinking higher than their actual results justify. So you need that peer input as a corrective. Luna: It sounds like a lot of this comes down to deliberately slowing down your judgment and building in checks. Lucas: Absolutely. And look, I think this is a good moment to mention something. We keep this show ad-free and we put a lot of work into making each episode specific and practical. If you have found it useful — maybe for a career decision or to handle a tough management situation — listener support is what keeps it going. You can help at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. That is it, no pressure. Luna: Yeah, it is a small way to keep the episodes coming and we really appreciate it. Lucas: So back to calibration. Another trap: the first person to speak in a calibration session often sets the tone. If you are the first to present and you give a four, the next manager might feel pressure to match that for their person even if the performance is not equivalent. So if you have a borderline case, consider going later in the agenda. Let the group settle into a rhythm. Luna: That is almost tactical. But it makes sense. The room wants to be fair, but they also want to be consistent, and early ratings become anchors. Lucas: Right. And the last thing I want to cover is the narrative itself. New managers often write too much. They narrate every project chronologically. But the best reviews tell a story with a thesis. Open with the main point: 'Alex exceeded expectations on execution but needs to improve cross-functional communication.' Then give two specific examples for each. That is it. If your narrative is longer than a page, you are probably burying the lead. Luna: And the thesis-first format also makes it easier for the employee to actually absorb the feedback. They know what to work on. Lucas: Exactly. So to recap for anyone going into their first cycle: read past reviews, write in batches, coach the self-review lightly, check with a peer before calibration, speak later if you are on the fence, and lead with a thesis. Do those six things, and you will be ahead of most first-time managers. Luna: And maybe one more: be ready to be wrong. If the calibration session reveals a blind spot, do not defend your rating. Adjust. That builds trust with the room. Lucas: That is a great point. The goal is accuracy, not being right. And accuracy makes the whole process fairer for your team. Luna: Alright, that is a solid toolkit. I feel more prepared just listening. Lucas: Good. Then we will see you next week for the next one.