What you'll learn
- Establish the review period and who owns the assessment.
- Check inherited claims without presenting them as firsthand observations.
- Handle missing evidence and a required rating through the company's process.
Scope the performance review as a new manager
Before writing a performance review as a new manager, confirm the period, applicable goals and purpose. Is this a development conversation, an assessment that informs pay or promotion, or both? Then ask the founder or person responsible for the process who completes the review, who may contribute, and who approves any rating. If the company has no clear rule, agree who is responsible rather than quietly deciding for yourself.
Published processes illustrate why these questions matter. Brown University assigns the current manager the evaluation and final rating after an internal transfer, with input from the predecessor. UC Merced distinguishes a transfer during the review period from one after it ends. At Delaware, additional reviewers can supply a narrative, while the primary supervisor selects the rating. These are local arrangements, not rules to import into your company.
Write the dates into your preparation notes: ‘Review covers July to September; I became the manager on 15 September.’ Once the basis is clear, use the broader performance review guide for the meeting itself. This article addresses the evidence you need before that conversation; it does not replace a review agenda.
Check inherited evidence before turning it into a judgement
- 01
Locate the expectations for the period
Find the agreed goals, role responsibilities and documented changes. Note when each change took effect. A new preference you introduced last week cannot explain what was expected three months earlier.
- 02
Request specific earlier inputs
Ask the predecessor for relevant work, feedback and dates, including strengths and concerns. Invite the employee to identify accomplishments, supporting records and missing context. Where appropriate, ask authorised contributors who worked closely with them about a specific outcome, not their reputation.
- 03
Check what each source actually shows
Distinguish what you observed, what someone reported and what an appropriate work record supports. A project completion date can establish timing without proving who caused a delay or delivered the entire result.
- 04
Name the remaining gaps
Record which dates or criteria lack useful evidence, what is disputed, and who can check the relevant record. Do not infer either satisfactory or poor performance from an empty section.
If the inherited note says ‘unreliable’, ask for the dated observations behind the label: which commitment, what deadline, what happened, and what was discussed then? Also check which expectations actually applied. The same care applies to ‘exceptional’: a positive judgement still needs relevant work and a clear basis.
If the predecessor has left, work with the responsible leader to locate authorised project records, previous feedback and goal outcomes. Brown's guide describes this fallback for its own new managers. It is a useful starting question, not assurance that every missing period can be reconstructed. Keep sensitive people information in the company's appropriate records; do not build a team-visible dossier or search private messages for appraisal material.
Work through a review you only partly observed
Consider a hypothetical quarterly review covering July to September. You took over on 15 September. The predecessor's note says ‘misses deadlines’. The employee says a July delivery waited for an agreed dependency. An August acceptance record also identifies a piece of work they completed successfully. You have directly observed two September handovers. Put those inputs beside one another before writing a quarter-wide assessment.
| Input | What it supports | Limit or next check |
|---|---|---|
| July delivery record and employee account | The record shows a delay; the employee attributes it to an agreed dependency. | Check the deadline, dependency agreement and who could act. The date alone does not establish individual responsibility. |
| Predecessor's ‘misses deadlines’ note | The predecessor reported a concern. | Ask for the incidents and feedback behind it. Without those, it does not establish a recurring pattern across the quarter. |
| August work acceptance | A dated record identifies the employee's completed contribution. | Check it against the relevant goal and contribution. You did not witness the work yourself. |
| Two September handovers you observed | You can describe those handovers and how they met the current expectation. | They cover two recent occasions, not the whole quarter or every performance criterion. |
Suppose the dependency agreement is confirmed, but no other missed deadline can yet be substantiated. Replace ‘missed deadlines throughout the quarter’ with a narrower account: ‘The July delivery was delayed while awaiting the agreed dependency. I observed two September handovers that met the current expectation. I have not established a recurring deadline problem across this period.’ Record the August contribution against its goal too; uncertainty about one concern should not erase supported positive work.
If accounts still conflict, retain their attribution: ‘The predecessor reported X; the employee disputes Y; the available record shows Z.’ Name the unresolved question and the person who will check it. For example, agree that you will verify the remaining delivery dates with the authorised project owner by Friday. These are suggested preparation fields, not a validated rating instrument. Adjust them to the actual review criteria and record requirements.
What if the form requires a rating?
Be specific: ‘This review covers the full quarter, but these criteria have no substantiated earlier input. What evidence or authorised review do we need before finalising the rating?’ Ask who may contribute or review the assessment. If the process offers a partial-period or insufficient-evidence provision, ask how it applies; if a later assessment is possible, agree who authorises it and when it will happen.
You can still discuss the work you can substantiate, recognise the supported contribution and agree current expectations. Keep that useful conversation distinct from a final administrative decision that has not been authorised. Give the employee a clear next step and date rather than an indefinite ‘we need more time’.
Make the evidence limits discussable
A possible opening is: ‘This review covers July to September. I became your manager on 15 September. I'll distinguish what I observed from the earlier information I checked. Please correct any dates, expectations or context I have wrong.’ You do not have to apologise for arriving late in the cycle. You do need to be clear about the basis of your assessment.
When the employee disputes a date or their part in a result, treat it as a checkable question before treating it as resistance. Keep disagreement about evidence discussable, preserve the relevant account and follow the company's correction process. Acas guidance recommends a written record of the discussion shared with the employee. Agree how corrections and any unfinished assessment will be recorded through the appropriate process.
For the next period, state the current expectation, the employee's action, your support and the next check-in. Working context such as Coop Profile can help you prepare questions about communication and support. It cannot recover missing historic evidence, prove competence or calculate a fair rating. Keep the assessment grounded in the relevant work and human judgement.
Before finalising a performance review as a new manager, read every consequential statement and ask: can the employee tell which dates it covers, where it came from and what remains to be checked? If one sounds broader than its evidence, narrow it or obtain the missing input through the agreed process.