Getting performance management right

In an age where performance management is set to become more common, how do we approach these conversations for the best outcome? 

By Giulietta Pizzaballa, UCL Psychology Student

 

Changes in The Law 

The Employment Rights Act 2025 means that pressure on everyday management has been tightened. From January 2027, unfair dismissal protection will be available after just six months’ service, compared to the previous two-year period. Moreover, the compensation cap has been removed, and the new law extends tribunal time limits to 6 months.  

 

Employers will now need to be clear earlier about what is going wrong, what improvement is required, follow an escalating process and be upfront that these are formal warnings. They will need honest, well recorded performance conversations and consistent use of warnings. The old habit of being able to deal with these issues informally before 2 years is no longer an option. We can learn from psychology studies how to get these conversations right.

Constructive Criticism That Keeps People in the Game 

Employers will need to build in this level of formality whilst seeking to keep people engaged. Here are our top tips to do this.  

 

• Be clear on what you expect - not only regarding role outcomes, but also around the attitude, work ethic, style, and standards that support strong performance within a specific professional culture. People don’t want to be blindsided by expectations they do not know you have. The goal is psychological safety, not avoidance of discomfort. In fact, being honest about possible outcomes can actually reduce anxiety, because uncertainty is often worse than bad news delivered clearly. Thorough performance conversations should therefore explain: 

  • What the issue is 

  • Why it matters 

  • What standard is expected 

  • What support will be provided 

  • What happens if things do not improve 

 

• Be empathetic and honest. People want to do a good job, so highlight real issues whilst giving employees a genuine opportunity to improve. This balance between specific and considerate feedback is what makes criticism constructive (Fong et al., 2018), highlighting how appropriately targeted but empathetic and human communication can direct employees toward improvement. 

  
  

• More frequent check-ins can also make feedback feel less punitive and more normalised, which helps employees stay open and engaged. The goal is not to avoid discomfort, but to make criticism clear, timely and useful. Research suggests that frequent reviews and ongoing coaching support growth (Mertens et al., 2021) while regular informal coaching helps catch issues early and build confidence around feedback (Obisi, 2012). 

  
  

• Be human (and beware of AI). We often shy away from the human element of conversations by using procedural language during formal processes. However, removing this element can be detrimental in the workplace. Studies show that human-written emails yield a 43% to 62% higher rate of substantive responses compared to AI-written emails (Vasquez, 2026). This is particularly important as AI-generated communication lacks nuance and the influence of personal narratives and lived experiences (Saha et al., 2026), which help people respond better to constructive criticism. According to Stanford’s March 2026 AI study, we also see that "even a single interaction with sycophantic AI reduced participants’ willingness to take responsibility and repair interpersonal conflicts, while increasing their own conviction that they were right". 

 

Overall, performance management works best when it is timely, specific and human. Clear feedback does not create unnecessary conflict, but rather it creates the clarity and space that people need to improve.