Why Annual Performance Reviews Are No Longer Enough, and What GCC Employers Should Run Between Cycles
Annual performance reviews are no longer enough because one year-end rating is now asked to carry decisions that cannot wait a year and need evidence a year-end memory cannot supply. Probation outcomes run on legal clocks set by each employee’s start date. The fix is not to abolish the annual review. Keep it as the formal decision record, and add documented check-ins and evidence captured during the year.
Written for CHROs, HR Directors and L&D leaders, this article takes its statutory examples from the UAE private sector, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman have their own rules, not summarised here.
What the annual review still does well
The annual review is not the problem on its own. It gives the organisation one moment to compare people on a common standard, settle pay and promotion decisions, and record why they were made. The CIPD’s 2016 evidence review, built on two reviews by the Center for Evidence-Based Management, concluded that “we can already dismiss suggestions that performance management should be abandoned,” and described performance management as “a continuous chain of connected activities.”
The trouble starts when the annual review is the only link in that chain. It then becomes expensive and thin at the same time. When Deloitte rebuilt its own process, Harvard Business Review reported that the firm was “spending close to 2 million hours a year on performance management.” Gallup’s 2019 analysis found that “only 14% of employees strongly agree their performance reviews inspire them to improve.” Large effort with little improvement is a design signal, not a reason to stop measuring.
Two reasons annual performance reviews fall short on their own
1. Evidence decays before the rating is written
A manager rating twelve months of work in December risks rating what they remember, and memory of a year is uneven: events early or late in the period can dominate the rating. One 2021 study of appraisal ratings found that low performance at the start of the assessment period produced a more negative appraisal than the same behaviour later on. Without dated notes, the rating is hard to defend when an employee challenges it, and harder to calibrate across teams. Gallup reports that “nearly half of employees say they receive feedback from their manager a few times a year or less,” and that when managers give weekly rather than annual feedback, team members are “2.7x more likely to be engaged at work.” Gartner’s survey of 2,947 employees and managers, published in April 2026, found that only 39% of employees agree their manager gives clear developmental feedback.
For context in the region, Gallup’s 2026 State of the Global Workplace report puts employee engagement in the Middle East and North Africa at 14%. Engagement is not the same as appraisal quality, but it shows how much ground in-year feedback has to cover.
2. Legal clocks run from the start date, not the appraisal calendar
Probation is the clearest example. Each decision is due on a date set by the individual contract, so an annual cycle will almost always arrive too late to inform it.
- UAE (private sector, Emirati and expatriate employees alike). Under Article 9 of UAE Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021, an employee covered by the law may be placed on probation for up to six months. If an employer wishes to terminate employment during probation, the employer must provide at least 14 days’ written notice before the termination date. Different notice requirements apply when an employee resigns during probation. HR teams should therefore schedule probation assessments early enough to make decisions and comply with the applicable notice requirements. DIFC and ADGM have separate employment frameworks.
- Saudi Arabia (Saudi and non-Saudi employees). In Saudi Arabia, Article 53 of the amended Labour Law requires any probation period to be expressly stated in the employment contract, including its duration. The total probation period must not exceed 180 days, subject to applicable rules on excluded leave. Article 54 generally prohibits placing an employee on probation more than once with the same employer. Exceptions may apply under a written agreement for a different role or where at least six months have passed since the previous employment relationship ended. Employers should monitor individual probation dates rather than relying on annual appraisal cycles.
- Qatar (employees covered by Labour Law No. 14 of 2004). Under Article 39 of Qatar Labour Law No. 14 of 2004, as amended by Decree-Law No. 18 of 2020, an employee covered by the law may be placed on probation for a maximum of six months from the start of employment. The same employer cannot place the employee on probation more than once. Where an employer determines that the employee is unable to perform the required work and terminates the contract during probation, at least one month’s notice must be provided. Employers should document performance concerns and complete probation assessments before the relevant contractual deadlines.
The lesson is the same in all three: the probation review needs its own trigger, owned by the line manager and visible to HR well before the deadline.
Records matter beyond probation too. Commenting on UAE termination disputes in October 2026, a Dubai employment lawyer said documented appraisals “may be relevant in challenging an employer’s stated reasons for termination,” with their weight depending on their content and consistency with other employment records. A single year-end rating with no in-year record is weak evidence for either side. Any disciplinary or exit decision still needs legal advice.
The direction of travel: the UAE federal government already runs a year-round cycle
The UAE introduced Injazati under Cabinet Resolution No. 161 of 2025, effective from 1 January 2026, for covered federal government employees. The system combines objective setting, ongoing performance discussions, annual evaluation and subsequent moderation and reward processes. Although it does not impose these review-cycle requirements on private-sector employers, it provides a useful example of how formal annual assessments can be supported by continuous performance management. Direct supervisors are required to:
“provide subordinates and work teams with continuous feedback on their performance.”
The decision calendar: what an annual-only cycle misses
Table 1 maps the decisions a performance process feeds against when they actually fall.
| Decision | When it actually falls | Annual-only result | What to have on record instead |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probation outcome | Before the contract’s probation end date; where the employer terminates during probation, allow for the statutory notice (14 days UAE, one month Qatar) | Decision made by default, or too late to give notice | Dated objectives from day one, a mid-probation check-in and a probation review triggered from the start date |
| Objective change | On restructures, role changes and transfers between entities | Employee rated against objectives that stopped applying months ago | Objectives with target dates, re-set and logged when the role changes |
| Increment and salary structure | Budget cycle, then the first payroll cut-off after approval | Bulk changes keyed in one run | Approved amount and effective date, recorded before payroll cut-off |
| Promotion or grade change | When a role opens, not when the calendar says | Promotion justified by a rating up to a year old | Current competency assessment against the target job title |
| Development and training | When a gap appears, and before the training budget closes | Needs identified after the budget is spent | Development recommendations from each assessment, passed to the L&D plan |
| Sustained performance concern | When the concern first appears | One adverse rating with no prior record | Dated feedback and agreed actions; take legal advice before any disciplinary or exit step |
Table 1. The decision calendar. Sources: Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021, Art. 9; Qatar Law No. 14 of 2004, Art. 39 as amended; gulfHR editorial analysis.
gulfHR expert view
Treat every review outcome that affects pay or benefits as a controlled payroll change request. Most debate about annual reviews concerns the conversation. From the payroll side, the weaker point is the handoff. A rating that leads to an increment, a grade change or a bonus is a change to a record with legal weight, and it deserves the same controls as any other payroll change: an owner, an approver, an effective date and a cut-off.
One question exposes whether a process does this: can HR show, for any employee, which assessment justified their last pay change? If the answer depends on a spreadsheet, the annual review is carrying more risk than it should.
What to run between cycles
Continuous performance management means fewer surprises, not more meetings, because the record is built as the year happens. Managers have limited room for more: Gartner’s April 2026 survey found 47% of managers say more is expected of them than a year ago, so check-ins should be short notes against objectives, not extra meetings. A workable model has five parts.
- Cascaded objectives with target dates. Corporate goals linked to department and individual objectives, weighted, and re-set when a role or entity changes.
- Short, documented check-ins. Quarterly at minimum as a recommended HR practice, not a legal minimum, with the note stored against the objective rather than in an inbox. Cadence matters less than whether the note can be found in December.
- Event-driven reviews. Probation, transfer and promotion reviews triggered by the event date, not the calendar.
- A mid-year assessment. Self-assessment and manager assessment against the same objectives, so the year-end rating confirms a trajectory rather than inventing one.
- Calibration before pay. Ratings moderated across teams before increments are approved, then passed to payroll with the effective date.
For L&D leaders, the gain is timing. Development needs captured at each check-in can shape the training plan while budget remains, instead of arriving as a backlog in January.
Performance management systems collect personal employee information, including ratings, manager feedback, competency assessments and development records. Employers should ensure that this information is processed for legitimate, clearly defined purposes, accessed only by authorised personnel and protected through appropriate security and retention controls.
In the UAE, Federal Decree-Law No. 45 of 2021 establishes the federal personal data protection framework, subject to statutory exclusions, including qualifying free zones with their own data protection laws. Saudi Arabia has its own Personal Data Protection Law. Employers operating across GCC countries should assess the privacy requirements applicable to each entity and jurisdiction.
Where gulfHR fits
gulfHR brings performance management, employee information and payroll-related processes into a connected HR technology environment. Its Performance Management module supports objective setting, KPI tracking, assessments and ongoing feedback. During a gulfHR demonstration, organisations can review how approved performance outcomes, such as salary increments, promotions and grade changes, may be managed alongside their existing HR and payroll processes, subject to the modules and workflows available in their implementation.
Our guide to the integrated HR and payroll system explains how records and cut-offs connect across modules.
Frequently asked questions
Should we stop doing annual performance reviews?
No. The evidence supports keeping a formal annual decision point for pay, promotion and calibration. What it does not support is relying on that review alone. Add dated objectives, documented check-ins and event-driven reviews so the annual rating rests on a year of evidence.
Does the UAE’s Injazati system apply to private-sector employers?
No. Injazati applies to employees of UAE federal government entities, with some job grades excluded. Private-sector employment is governed by Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021, or by the DIFC or ADGM employment laws in those free zones. Injazati is useful as a design benchmark only.
Why do probation reviews need a separate trigger?
Because the deadline comes from each employee’s contract and the applicable law, not from the appraisal calendar. In the UAE, an employer that wishes to terminate employment during probation must provide at least 14 days’ written notice before the termination date. In Qatar, where an employer determines that the employee is unable to perform the required work and terminates the contract during probation, at least one month’s notice must be provided, and the same employer cannot place the employee on probation more than once. In Saudi Arabia probation is capped at 180 days in total and generally cannot be repeated with the same employer.
Scope note: this article reflects our understanding of the cited requirements on 26 October 2026, is not legal advice, and figures should be verified with the named authority (MOHRE, MHRSD or Qatar’s Ministry of Labour) before use.
See performance management connected to payroll
Book a gulfHR demonstration and walk through one review cycle on your own structure, from objectives and check-ins to the handoff of approved changes to payroll.
Sources
- UAE Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Labour Relations, Arts. 3 and 9. uaelegislation.gov.ae. Accessed 13 October 2026.
- UAE Cabinet Resolution No. 161 of 2025 on the Adoption of the Performance Management System for Federal Government Employees (Injazati), Arts. 2, 5, 6 and 9. uaelegislation.gov.ae. Accessed 13 October 2026.
- UAE Federal Decree-Law No. 45 of 2021 on the Protection of Personal Data, Art. 2. uaelegislation.gov.ae. Accessed 13 October 2026.
- Saudi Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development, Labour Law, Arts. 53 and 54 (as amended). hrsd.gov.sa. Accessed 13 October 2026.
- Qatar Ministry of Labour, Law No. 14 of 2004 Promulgating the Labour Law, Art. 39, as amended by Decree-Law No. 18 of 2020. mol.gov.qa. Accessed 13 October 2026.
- Gifford, J., Could do better? Assessing what works in performance management, CIPD, December 2016. cipd.org. Accessed 13 October 2026.
- Buckingham, M. and Goodall, A., Reinventing Performance Management, Harvard Business Review, April 2015. hbr.org. Accessed 13 October 2026.
- Sutton, R. and Wigert, B., More Harm Than Good: The Truth About Performance Reviews, Gallup, 6 May 2019. gallup.com. Accessed 13 October 2026.
- Gartner, Gartner HR Survey Finds 47% of Managers Say They Are Working Harder Than One Year Ago, press release, 29 April 2026. gartner.com. Accessed 26 October 2026.
- Gallup, State of the Global Workplace, regional data (2026 report). gallup.com. Accessed 26 October 2026.
- Rosales, C., Díaz-Cabrera, M. D. and Hernández-Fernaud, E., Influence of measurement type and the moment of occurrence of low performance behaviours on task and citizenship performance appraisal, Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 55(1), 2021. journal.sipsych.org. Accessed 26 October 2026.
- Khaleej Times, Can good appraisals help prove arbitrary termination in Dubai?, legal column by Ashish Mehta & Associates, 18 October 2026. khaleejtimes.com. Accessed 26 October 2026.
- Saudi Data and AI Authority, Personal Data Protection Law; in-force date corroborated by Clyde & Co, September 2024. clydeco.com. Accessed 13 October 2026.