For most employees, performance management systems are much different than what they’re used to, and before getting started, employees should complete training in the three phases of the performance management cycle: planning, performing, and reviewing.

One of the best things about a performance management program — no more lengthy, formal meetings. Rather, successful organizations make conversations about performance plans a regular, if informal, event as projects are being carried out. Such conversations and ongoing coaching are excellent tools for managing people. Further, it’s in the context of such conversations that barriers to progress are discovered. In other words, if you really want to make your program strong, you must exercise it regularly.

Once the top priorities are defined, the executive team establishes specific measures for those priorities. These metrics are incorporated into the senior executives’ performance objectives. Using the performance management system, accountabilities cascade down to the next level where managers discuss with their bosses specific goals and accountabilities that align with corporate goals. Managers then do the same with their direct reports, translating departmental goals, all the while maintaining alignment with corporate goals.

More companies are using 360-degree multirater tools for performance management. These are surveys completed by those around you — supervisors, peers, direct reports and sometimes vendors and customers. There are two major problems with this approach. First, it’s too time consuming. Especially when several performance appraisals are due at the same time, it becomes a logistical nightmare.

Annual performance review. Employee appraisal. Job evaluation. Whatever your company calls it, this process, most often perceived as the domain of the human resources department, can conjure up equal parts angst, confusion, and distrust. And that’s just on the manager’s side of the desk. Why is this? And why are employees anxious about the review process? It could be they feel reviews are arbitrary, and they have no real input or that their contributions are meaningless.