How to move beyond generic feedback to reviews that actually accelerate careers

I’ve written dozens of performance reviews over the years, but it wasn’t until I had to write one earlier this year that I realized how most reviews miss the mark. Here’s what I learned about writing reviews that actually help people grow, with real examples from my experience managing engineers across different levels and specializations.

The Problem with Generic Performance Reviews

Most technical performance reviews I see follow the same pattern:

• “Great team player”
• “Solid technical skills”
• “Could improve communication”

These reviews check boxes but don’t answer the questions that matter:

• What specific behaviors should the person continue or change?
• How do their contributions connect to business outcomes?
• What concrete steps will accelerate their career growth?

The Three-Question Framework That Works

After managing engineers from IC-2 to Staff+ levels, I developed a framework around three core questions that force specificity:

1. “What is one way this person helps you or your team succeed?”

Bad example: “Joshua is helpful and collaborative.”

Good example: “Joshua has been instrumental to our team’s success through his exceptional ownership and accountability, particularly with critical projects like the abc and xyz. Since joining in less than a year, he’s demonstrated remarkable adaptability by readily taking on tasks outside his comfort zone, from learning a new framework and reactive programming to mastering a new programming language. His proactive approach to resolving issues, such as abc and xyz, has been invaluable.”

Why this works: It connects specific technical contributions to team outcomes and shows business impact.

2. “What strengths have you observed this person exhibiting?”

This isn’t about listing skills, it’s about observable behaviors that create value.

Example from a senior engineer’s review: “Isla consistently demonstrates technical leadership beyond her title. When we encountered performance issues with our search functionality, she didn’t just fix the immediate problem but she created a comprehensive analysis of our search architecture, identified three optimization opportunities, and led the implementation that reduced search time by 40%. More importantly, she documented the entire process and used it as a teaching moment for junior engineers.”

Key elements:

• Specific technical challenge
• Actions taken beyond the minimum required
• Measurable business impact
• Leadership behavior (teaching others)

3. “In what ways could this person continue to develop?”

This is where most reviews fail. Instead of vague suggestions, focus on career trajectory and skill gaps.

For a junior IC targeting mid-level: “While Joshua has shown excellent breadth as a generalist, his path to mid-level requires developing deeper expertise in specific domains. I recommend he focus on either frontend architecture (building on his Angular/React experience) or backend systems (leveraging his Python programming work). Additionally, to demonstrate mid-level readiness, he should begin taking ownership of technical decisions that affect multiple team members, such as proposing architectural improvements or leading technical design discussions.”

Level-Specific Review Strategies

For Junior Engineers

Focus on: Learning velocity, collaboration, foundation building

Real example: “Over the past quarter, Luigi has shown remarkable growth in both technical skills and engineering judgment. When tasked with implementing abc features, he didn’t just write code but he researched industry best practices, proposed three alternative approaches with trade-offs, and implemented comprehensive tests. His questions in code reviews have evolved from ‘how do I do this?’ to ‘what are the implications of doing it this way?’ Thereby showing developing engineering maturity.”

For Mid-Level Engineers

Focus on: Independent execution, technical decision-making, influence

Example structure:

• Technical Impact: Specific projects owned and outcomes achieved
• Collaboration: How they enable others’ success
• Growth Areas: Skills needed for senior level (system design, mentoring)

For Senior Engineers

Focus on: Technical leadership, organizational impact, strategic thinking

Key questions:

• How do they influence technical direction beyond their immediate team?
• What complex problems have they solved that others couldn’t?
• How do they develop other engineers?

The Context-Setting Strategy

Every good performance review needs context. I learned this when writing reviews for engineers working on different products with different business requirements.

Template I use:

1. Role Context: What was this person’s role and scope?
2. Business Context: What challenges was the team/product facing?
3. Specific Contributions: How did this person respond to those challenges?
4. Impact Assessment: What was the measurable outcome?

Example: “During Q2, our product faced critical customer escalations around xyz failures. Remy took ownership of the entire issue lifecycle from customer communication to root cause analysis to implementing fixes. His systematic approach not only resolved the immediate issues but also led to architectural improvements that reduced similar problems by 85% in subsequent releases.”

I will continue additional details in the next post. If you enjoyed reading this, you will also like these posts.