{"article":{"id":58239617237785,"url":"https://reflektive.zendesk.com/api/v2/help_center/en-us/articles/58239617237785.json","html_url":"https://support.reflektive.com/hc/en-us/articles/58239617237785-Selecting-the-Right-Review-Type-for-your-Performance-Needs","author_id":902673952143,"comments_disabled":false,"draft":false,"promoted":false,"position":2,"vote_sum":0,"vote_count":0,"upvote_count":0,"downvote_count":0,"section_id":58105651409177,"created_at":"2026-05-24T13:30:23Z","updated_at":"2026-05-24T13:30:23Z","name":"Selecting the Right Review Type for your Performance Needs","title":"Selecting the Right Review Type for your Performance Needs","source_locale":"en-us","locale":"en-us","outdated":false,"outdated_locales":[],"edited_at":"2026-05-24T13:30:23Z","user_segment_id":null,"permission_group_id":317186,"content_tag_ids":[],"label_names":[],"body":"
\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

Whether you're creating a review process from scratch, or simply looking to streamline a legacy process, the first step in executing a successful performance conversation is selecting the review type.  In addition to informing the overall infrastructure of the review itself, the review type also determines one of the most critical elements of any performance conversation: what employees are being reviewed, and who is reviewing them.

\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n

360 Reviews

\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n

The 360 Review is the most comprehensive review type in the Reflektive, offering a complete picture performance by including reviews from an employee's peers, making it ideal for cross-functional workplaces.  Its settings are flexible, allowing for varied levels of anonymity and peer review lists.  

\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n
    \n
  • \nParticipants: Managers, direct reports, and peers (with option for upwards reviews of managers)\n
    • \n
  • \nTime Commitment: Moderate to heavy \n
    • \n
  • \nTypical Cadence: Annually\n
    • \n
  • \nSuggested Use Cases: \n
      \n
    • Incorporate into your performance calendar for a more comprehensive review 
      • \n
    • Help employees identify strengths and weaknesses in their work from those with whom they work most closely
      • \n
    \n
    • \n
\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n

Performance Reviews

\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n

A  tried and true classic, Performance Reviews are commonly leveraged by companies that have more traditional performance processes.  Involving only managers and their direct reports, these reviews also support upwards manager reviews for organizations that are seeking feedback on their team leads.

\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n
    \n
  • \nParticipants: Managers, direct reports (with option for upwards reviews of managers)\n
    • \n
  • \nTime Commitment: Light to moderate 
    \n
    • \n
  • \nTypical Cadence: Annually or semi-annually\n
    • \n
  • \nSuggested Use Cases: \n
      \n
    • Upwards reviews to promote growth of people managers
      • \n
    • Reviews that mirror any legacy process within an organization
      • \n
    \n
    • \n
\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n

Check-ins

\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n

Designed as an alternative to traditional reviews, Check-ins offer a more lightweight alternative, which means you can administer these at a more frequent cadence.   

\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n
    \n
  • \nParticipants: Managers, direct reports\n
    • \n
  • \nTime Commitment: Light \n
    • \n
  • \nTypical Cadence: Quarterly\n
    • \n
  • \nSuggested Use Cases: \n
      \n
    • Quarterly conversations around goal performance
      • \n
    • \nQuick pulse checks in between performance reviews\n
      • \n
    \n
    • \n
  • \nKey difference: Delivery mechanism is one-step. As soon as the manager submits their review for the direct report, the direct report will receive it immediately. In other review types, there will be a separate delivery step between the manager submission and delivery.
    • \n
\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
"}}