How to Improve Participation Rates in Employee Reviews

Employee review processes–including annual performance appraisals, 360-degree feedback cycles, and peer review programs–work best when participation rates are high. Broad participation leads to more diverse feedback and fairer evaluations. It also sends a powerful signal: the organization truly values the process.

Yet, many companies still face the same challenge. Employees skip reviews. Managers rush through forms. Some treat the entire exercise as a formality.

This report explores proven ways to change that. It examines evidence-based strategies and practical tools that boost participation in employee reviews across all types of organizations–from small startups to global enterprises.

We also discuss cultural and leadership practices that drive consistent involvement, plus case studies of companies that achieved exceptionally high completion rates.

Common Barriers to Participation (and How to Address Them)

Employees may avoid or superficially complete reviews for many reasons. Common barriers include lack of time, fear of negative feedback, skepticism about the process’s value, or simply not knowing how to give or receive feedback. Identifying these obstacles is the first step; the next is implementing targeted solutions.

The table below summarizes frequent participation barriers and strategies to overcome them:

‍

‍

Incentives and Communication Strategies to Boost Participation

Overcoming reluctance often requires a combination of incentives (to motivate participation) and communication (to inform and engage participants).

Below are effective strategies in these areas:

• Reiterate the Benefits and Importance: One of the simplest but most powerful communication strategies is to continually remind employees why the review process matters. Instead of treating reviews as a checkbox exercise, senior leaders should communicate that feedback and reviews are part of the company’s growth culture and benefit each employee’s career development. For example, a CEO or top executive can kick off the review cycle at an all-hands meeting, underlining that the goal is to recognize accomplishments and discuss growth opportunities (not to surprise anyone or find faults). Hearing this message from leadership helps employees see reviews as a supported, integral activity rather than an imposed task.
  
  
• Visible Leadership Involvement: Leadership engagement itself can be an incentive. When executives and managers actively participate and share their own experiences, it sets a tone that everyone should do the same. Leaders should “walk the talk” by completing their portions (such as upward reviews of their own managers or self-reviews) on time and encouraging their teams. In organizations where senior management champions the process, employees take it more seriously–if leaders don’t support it, there’s little reason for others to bother. A best practice is to involve some influential leaders in piloting new review initiatives (for instance, trying out a new 360-feedback tool) so they can later advocate its benefits to the rest of the company.
  
  
• Set Clear Expectations and Friendly Competition: Establishing transparent goals and deadlines for the review cycle helps create a sense of accountability. Communicate a firm timeline (e.g. “Self-assessments due by X date, peer reviews by Y date, managers complete by Z date”) and send reminders as each milestone approaches. Making the completion rate visible can also incentivize participation–for instance, some companies share a live dashboard or send out regular updates like “We’re at 85% completion, let’s hit 100% by Friday!”. At Policygenius, the HR team made 100% completion a team objective and posted daily participation rates on Slack, sparking a bit of friendly competition and urgency to finish reviews. This kind of gamified approach works as an internal incentive, tapping into people’s competitive spirit and team pride (departments might compete to be the first to 100% done, for example). The key is to frame it positively–celebrating those who complete on time and encouraging, rather than shaming, those who are lagging.
  
  
• Use Incentives Wisely: In addition to intrinsic motivators, some organizations consider extrinsic incentives to encourage participation. Common incentive ideas include public recognition for teams that achieve high completion, small rewards (team lunches, gift cards, an extra day off) for hitting participation targets, or tying part of managers’ performance evaluation to timely completion of reviews. Caution: Incentives should reinforce the purpose of the reviews, not undermine it. For instance, rewarding managers for 100% completion is reasonable, but giving a bonus to employees just for filling out a review regardless of quality can send the wrong message. Research suggests that when rewards are given for mere completion of a task without regard to its value, it can actually reduce intrinsic motivation. Thus, it’s best to use incentives that emphasize how completing a thorough review benefits the individual and team. One effective approach is to link participation to development opportunities–e.g. only employees who complete their self-review can access certain career development resources or be eligible for certain performance bonuses. This way, the “reward” for participating is directly tied to personal growth.
  
  
• Multi-Channel Reminders and Guidance: Busy employees may need gentle nudges. Use multiple communication channels to keep the review on everyone’s radar: kickoff announcements in meetings, follow-up emails, Slack or Teams notifications, and even mentioning it in one-on-one check-ins. A personal touch from managers can be especially effective–one HR leader found that when managers simply brought up “don’t forget to finish your review” during their next one-on-one meetings, it drove significantly higher response rates than email blasts. Varying the message format prevents “reminder fatigue”: for example, an initial email, then a team meeting reminder, then a quick personal note as the deadline nears. Many performance management platforms can automate reminder emails or in-app prompts as well, which is useful, but augment these with human communication to stress that managers truly care about completion.
  
  
• Simplify and Support the Feedback Process: Sometimes employees don’t participate simply because they aren’t confident in giving feedback. A smart communication strategy is to educate and empower employees to provide meaningful input. Share tips or brief training on how to write a good review–for instance, Lattice’s HR team provides pointers like “be specific, cite examples, focus on future improvements” to all reviewers. Another company, Rainforest QA, distributed a FAQ and tips document to demystify 360-degree feedback for their staff. By demystifying the process and offering examples of constructive language, you lower the barrier for participation. This communication acts as an incentive too–people are more willing to do something when they know how to do it well and feel it won’t be a frustrating experience.
  

Leveraging Technology and Platforms for Higher Engagement

Implementing the right technology can dramatically improve participation in review processes, by making it easier and even more engaging for employees to give and receive feedback. Modern performance management platforms provide tools that address many of the barriers and inefficiencies of traditional reviews.

Key ways in which technology boosts participation include:

• Streamlining the Process: Online performance review systems turn what might be a clunky paper or email process into a seamless digital workflow. This reduces the friction that often causes drop-off.
  
  
• User-Friendly Interfaces (Including Mobile): A platform that is easy to use encourages employees to log in and complete their reviews. Features like single sign-on, a clear dashboard showing pending tasks, and mobile app access all help. Look for tools that have a clean user experience, because if the software is confusing or slow, people will procrastinate or avoid it. Mobile access is particularly important for organizations with non-desk workers or geographically distributed teams. Allowing people to complete a peer review on their phone or tablet during a commute or between job tasks can capture feedback that would be missed if a desktop login were required.
  
  
• Automated Reminders and Tracking: Technology shines at the administrative side of driving participation. Most performance management systems can send automatic reminder emails or push notifications to employees who haven’t completed their self-review or to managers with pending tasks. They also provide HR with real-time dashboards of completion rates by department or group. These features save HR from having to manually chase each person and help identify bottlenecks early (e.g. if one department is lagging, a targeted nudge can be sent). Automated reminders, when well-timed and phrased, ensure no one forgets their responsibilities.

• Anonymity and Confidentiality in 360-Feedback: Technology can address privacy concerns that often hinder participation in multi-rater (360-degree) reviews. Many platforms allow peer feedback to be given anonymously (with aggregated reports to the recipient), which can encourage more candid input. If employees trust the tool to keep identities confidential, they are more likely to participate honestly. It’s important to communicate how the platform ensures anonymity (e.g. not showing verbatim comments if it might reveal the rater’s identity). Additionally, digital systems can restrict visibility so that, say, only HR and the manager see certain feedback, which might make upward feedback less intimidating to provide.
  
  
• Templates, Guidance, and AI Assistance: Good software doesn’t just collect feedback; it guides users on what to say. Built-in templates for self-assessments, peer reviews, and manager evaluations can prompt participants with relevant questions so they aren’t starting from scratch. For instance, a platform might include a peer review template that asks for examples of how the colleague helped the team, which keeps feedback focused and easier to write. Some advanced systems now include AI suggestions–e.g. suggesting phrasing for feedback or auto-generating a draft summary from inputs–which can help reluctant writers. While AI-generated reviews should be used with caution (to ensure authenticity), these features can reduce the effort required and thus increase willingness to participate, especially among those less comfortable with writing feedback.
  
  
• Integration with Ongoing Feedback Tools: Participation in annual or formal reviews is higher when it’s part of a continuum rather than a once-a-year spike. Technology can integrate performance reviews with continuous feedback and goal-setting tools. For example, platforms like PerformYard allow managers and employees to keep track of goals and one-on-one notes throughout the year, then automatically pull that data into the performance review form. This not only saves time (no one has to hunt through old emails to remember accomplishments), but it also makes the review feel more relevant and less of a huge effort at one time. Continuous performance management apps (for checking in or giving quick kudos) create a habit of feedback, which in turn makes employees more comfortable engaging in the formal review when it arrives.
  
  
• Analytics and Action Planning: A subtle but important way technology drives sustained participation is by enabling post-review analytics and follow-up. When a system quickly aggregates feedback results, highlights patterns (e.g. skill gaps or strengths in a team), and even suggests development resources, it helps managers act on the feedback.

‍

Organizational Culture and Leadership Practices for High Participation

While tools and tactics are important, long-term success in participation rates comes from an organizational culture that values feedback and leaders who set the tone.

Here we explore how culture and leadership practices influence employee engagement in review processes:

• Cultivate a Feedback-Friendly Culture: Participation will flourish in a culture where feedback is normalized and appreciated. This means encouraging open communication and continuous feedback beyond the formal review cycles. Organizations that promote regular one-on-one meetings, coaching conversations, and peer recognition find that employees are less anxious and more willing when formal reviews happen. A culture that says “feedback is a gift” and treats mistakes as learning opportunities tends to have employees who willingly share their input. On the other hand, cultures that are highly hierarchical or blame-oriented may need to work harder to get honest participation–employees in such environments might fear that frank feedback (especially upward or peer feedback) could be held against them. To counteract this, leadership should explicitly assure that constructive feedback is safe and valued. Some companies even establish ground rules or values around feedback (e.g. respectful candor, assume positive intent) to create a psychologically safe atmosphere for reviews.
  
  
• Leadership Buy-In and Modeling: We’ve touched on this, but it cannot be overstated–if leaders walk the walk, others follow. When top executives not only mandate reviews but personally participate (for example, a VP soliciting 360-feedback from their team and sharing what they learned), it sends a powerful message that everyone has room to grow and that the process is taken seriously. Leadership can also embed participation into management expectations. For instance, Cindy Gordon, a Chief People Officer at Policygenius, made the company’s performance review completion rate a public OKR (Objective and Key Result) for her team–essentially setting 100% participation as a shared goal. This kind of leadership-driven goal created focus and “rallied the team” to achieve it, as she reported. Similarly, managers should be coached that one of their responsibilities is to ensure their direct reports engage in the process; some companies include timely completion of reviews as a metric in managers’ performance evaluations or bonus criteria. The underlying practice is that leadership at all levels champions the process instead of treating it as HR’s job alone.
  
  
• Make it Business-Led, Not Just HR-Led: A hallmark of organizations with high participation is that performance reviews are woven into the business rhythm, not seen as an external HR imposition. One case study illustrates this well: at Sanitarium (1,100-employee food company), they shifted to a business-led approach by involving a group of emerging leaders to select and champion a new review platform. These leaders introduced the system to their teams and integrated goal-setting and feedback into regular workflowcultureamp.comcultureamp.com. Because the drive came from within departments (with HR facilitating rather than policing), employees were more engaged, resulting in a jump to 100% completion in the first year of usecultureamp.com. The lesson is that while HR might organize the process, the ownership should be shared with line leaders. Encourage departments or teams to take some autonomy in how they discuss and follow up on reviews. When each team “owns” their improvement actions from feedback, people see the process as part of how we do business, not just an HR exercise.
  
  
• Link Reviews to Core Values and Goals: Organizational culture is often defined by its core values and mission. To get buy-in, frame the review process as supporting those values. For example, if one of your company values is “grow together” or “continuous improvement,” explicitly tie the feedback process to that: “In line with our value of Growing Together, our review conversations are here to help everyone develop and succeed.” If teamwork is a core value, emphasize the peer feedback element as strengthening the team. Some companies make participation itself a cultural value–e.g. they might say, “We show respect by giving feedback to our colleagues when it’s time.” This kind of alignment makes participation feel like a natural expression of the culture. It’s also useful to align the timing of reviews with the business cycle or goal cycle, so that it’s seen as part of achieving business objectives (for instance, conducting performance reviews right after end-of-fiscal-year results, linking personal performance to company performance).
  
  
• Ensure Fairness and Transparency: Participation will drop if employees feel the review system is unfair or a black box. To counter this, best practices include using calibration sessions (where managers discuss the proposed ratings to ensure consistency and remove biases) and being transparent about how decisions (promotions, raises) are or aren’t tied to reviews. In high-participation cultures, employees trust the process. For example, if 360-degree feedback is used, explain how anonymity is preserved and how the feedback will be summarized–this builds trust so people will be frank in their responses. Another aspect of transparency is sharing aggregated results with the team or company. Some organizations will report something like, “100% of you completed the review–thank you! Here are some company-wide themes we heard…” This closes the loop and shows that voices were heard. It also holds leadership accountable to respond to feedback. When people see transparency in how feedback is handled, they are more inclined to give it next time.
  
  
• Follow-Up and Continued Dialogue: A strong culture of feedback doesn’t treat the annual review as a one-and-done event. Managers in high-participation companies are expected to follow up on the reviews with regular check-ins. After the formal review meeting, good leaders will set aside time in one-on-ones to revisit goals or development plans discussed. Lattice’s experts advise that managers should “keep the conversation going”–the review is a springboard for continuous coaching conversations throughout the year. When employees know that the feedback they give (or receive) will be acted on and discussed regularly, they take the process more seriously. It also prevents the scenario where reviews feel pointless; instead, each review is part of an ongoing narrative of growth. Organizationally, you might institute mid-year mini-reviews or quarterly check-ins to maintain momentum. This practice reinforces the culture that feedback isn’t just a periodic drill, but a continuous cycle–making participation in formal reviews a more natural, less daunting part of the job.