Comparing Apples to Oranges: Why Self-Referenced Performance Reviews are more Effective than Peer Comparisons, by Jonathan H. Westover PhD

Abstract: This article argues that self-referenced performance reviews are more effective for employee motivation and development than traditional peer comparison reviews. It draws on self-determination theory to explain how comparing employees to their peers undermines the psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness, diminishing intrinsic motivation. In contrast, self-referenced reviews that focus on individuals' past performance, strengths, and areas for growth better support these needs. Evidence suggests this approach fosters engagement and productivity by promoting a growth mindset oriented toward continual self-improvement rather than competition. Additionally, qualitative case studies of organizations that shifted to a self-referenced review model found increased morale, collaboration, and business outcomes as employees concentrated on progress within their control rather than relative standings. The article concludes self-referenced reviews align with human motivation science and are more constructive for building high-performing, cohesive workforces.