Currently, there is only one review workflow (created on the organization level) that can be assigned to several review types (1:1 discussion, mid-year review, goal setting, etc.) at a time. Also, with that one review workflow, there are only two steps in the workflow, i.e., approvals (Approve review and Final review) that can be assigned to different people within the organization (user, hierarchy, originator, owner, etc.).

The core issue is that many organizations/companies follow different approaches when it comes to their performance review processes, often exhibiting minor differences in their methods/processes.

Therefore I believe Microsoft and its community need to consider enhancing the existing review workflow, which currently includes "Approve review" and "Final review" steps, to offer more flexibility and accommodate diverse performance processes in various organizations. Specifically, for an organization intending to conduct a comprehensive annual performance review, it would be necessary to incorporate additional steps into the process/workflow.

One potential step to include is goal planning, where employees define their objectives, and managers provide approval. Following that, a mid-year review can be introduced. This stage involves managers and employees providing feedback on the established goals, supported by notifications to ensure timely input. Another important step is employee self-evaluation, where employees assess their own performance, reflecting on achievements and areas for improvement. Subsequently, managers evaluate the employee's performance based on the set goals, competencies, and overall contribution. In the subsequent stage, the manager assigns a final performance rating to the employee, typically utilizing a predefined rating scale. Finally, both the employee and manager need to sign off on the review (this should be in the workflow as well), signifying their acknowledgment and agreement.

The point is that it is essential to design the workflow as a cohesive unit. However, it should also allow for flexibility by enabling the exclusion of specific steps if an organization chooses not to use them in a specific review type. For instance, if a particular company decides not to include a self-assessment, that step can be easily removed from the workflow, allowing for a streamlined process. This approach ensures that we can accommodate the needs of multiple organizations with a single adaptable solution. That would also mean having different review workflows (not only one for all review types).

Finally, while there may be alternative design possibilities (via the form for example), the concept of establishing a flexible performance process is based on 'strong foundations' and should be considered for the implementation.