Performance Reviews in Nepal: How to Make Them Useful, Not Formalities

A performance review should not be the only time an employee hears how their work is going. When feedback is saved for one annual meeting, the conversation becomes stressful and often too vague to be useful. A stronger process uses regular check-ins, documented expectations and enough context for a fair discussion.

Begin with role expectations

Employees need to know what good work looks like in their role. Define responsibilities, priorities, expected behaviours and the outcomes the team can reasonably influence. Avoid a long list of generic traits. A useful expectation can be discussed with examples from normal work.

Use short check-ins throughout the year

A manager’s regular check-in can cover progress, blockers, support needed, changing priorities and development. The notes do not need to be long. They need to preserve the context that would otherwise be forgotten by the time a formal review arrives.

Separate feedback from surprise

No employee should first learn about a serious concern in a final rating. Raise issues early, describe the observed work, explain the impact and agree on a next step. The same principle applies to recognition: acknowledge strong work while the details are still clear.

Make goals realistic and connected to the work

Good goals are specific enough to guide choices, but flexible enough to reflect changing business needs. Managers should be able to explain why a goal matters and what support is available. Hajiri’s performance tools give teams one place for goals, check-ins and feedback records.

Review fairly

Use examples, not impressions. Consider the period being reviewed, the person’s role and the resources they had. Give employees space to add context. Where several managers review people, use a simple calibration discussion so similar work is treated consistently.

A useful review ends with clear next steps: what will continue, what needs attention and when the next conversation happens. That is more valuable than a score with no follow-through.