The old rhythm of performance reviews, a once-a-year meeting built around a score and a salary conversation, is steadily losing credibility across many workplaces. Global research and practice have moved towards more regular, lighter-touch check-ins that focus on clarity, coaching, and problem-solving in real time. In small labour markets like the Maldives, where relationships matter and teams can be tight-knit, the shift is not just a management trend. It is a practical response to how quickly priorities change, how hard it is to hire and keep good people, and how risky it can be to discover performance issues only when frustration has already built up.
What is increasingly seen as outdated is not feedback itself, but the idea that performance can be fairly captured through a single annual rating. A widely cited example from the corporate world is Deloitte’s redesign of performance management, which questioned traditional ratings and pushed managers towards frequent judgement calls and coaching conversations aimed at improvement rather than paperwork. More recent guidance from organisations such as CIPD also points to the limits of infrequent, formal review meetings and makes the case that the quality and timing of feedback matters more than the ceremony of the appraisal.
For Maldivian employers, this matters because a “late discovery” model is expensive. Many businesses, particularly in hospitality, construction, retail, logistics, and professional services, run on tight schedules and seasonal or project-based workloads. If an employee is underperforming, the cost shows up quickly in guest experience, rework, delayed handovers, and stress on colleagues. Waiting months to address it is not efficient, and it is rarely fair to the employee either.
A better question than “How do we rate people?” is “What evidence should we gather, consistently, so performance is visible?” The strongest modern systems tend to measure outcomes, observable behaviours, and growth. Outcomes are the easiest to understand, things like sales closed, cases resolved, campaigns delivered, errors reduced, or on-time completion. But outcomes need context, because not every role has clean numbers and not every month has the same conditions. That is why organisations increasingly pair results with leading indicators that show whether someone is doing the right work in the right way, such as responsiveness, reliability, quality checks, customer feedback, safety compliance, and teamwork. CIPD’s evidence review on feedback stresses that what works is specific, timely feedback that people can act on, rather than vague judgements delivered long after the fact.
In the Maldives, there is also a legal and operational reason to get this right. Employment decisions, especially termination for poor performance, are safer and more defensible when employers can show reasonable cause and demonstrate that steps were taken to address performance gaps. Maldives’ Employment Act sets out that dismissal should be tied to appropriate cause, and points to the need for measures such as discipline or upgrading skill deficiencies before dismissal for performance-related issues. A modern performance system, done properly, doubles as a fair process for the employee and a clear record for the employer.
Where AI enters the picture is in how organisations collect signals, summarise patterns, and support managers to make better judgements without drowning in admin. HR teams globally are already using AI to analyse review data for trends, help employees prepare for reviews, and even identify potential bias in evaluations, according to SHRM’s research on AI adoption. Separately, the OECD has warned that “algorithmic management”, where software influences scheduling, monitoring, and performance decisions, is spreading and can bring productivity benefits but also real risks, including privacy concerns, intensified work pressure, and unfair outcomes if governance is weak.
That warning matters in the Maldivian context because the workforce is diverse, with many businesses relying on expatriate staff alongside Maldivians, and because power dynamics can be sharper in smaller organisations. If AI tools are used to summarise performance, managers should treat them as assistants, not judges. A practical rule is that AI can help with consistency and insight, but final decisions must remain human, explainable, and grounded in evidence that an employee can understand and respond to. Worker trust is easily lost if people feel they are being scored by a system they cannot question. SHRM has also highlighted concerns that workers expect transparency about what data is used and want the ability to correct errors, especially as organisations adopt more data-driven HR practices.
There is also the data question. If a business is collecting more performance data, from customer comments to productivity dashboards, and then feeding that information into AI tools, it raises privacy and governance issues. A UNDP policy note on the Maldives’ digital landscape points to a Privacy and Personal Data Protection Bill being in draft form, alongside existing rights frameworks. Even before any new law fully takes effect, good practice is straightforward: collect only what is relevant, keep it secure, limit access, and be open with employees about what is tracked and why.
The future of performance review is less about a single “review” and more about a simple operating system for performance. The most effective direction is a rhythm of regular check-ins, clear goals that can be adjusted, and coaching that helps people improve while work is still underway. Gartner’s performance management guidance also frames this as moving towards a more flexible and sustainable approach that supports performance in the flow of work, rather than treating it as an annual event. For Maldivian business owners, the takeaway is not that performance management must become complicated. It is that it should become more continuous, more evidence-based, and more human.
If there is one practical shift that travels well into the Maldives, it is to separate development from pay discussions. Use regular monthly or quarterly conversations to talk about goals, progress, obstacles, and skill-building. Then use a separate, more structured process for compensation that draws on a year’s worth of evidence. This lowers anxiety, reduces gaming the system, and helps managers give honest feedback without the conversation turning into a bargaining session.
The businesses that will win the next few years are likely to be the ones that treat performance as something you build every week, not something you judge once a year. Done well, modern performance management is not softer. It is clearer, fairer, and more useful for both employer and employee, which is exactly what the Maldivian labour market needs as competition for talent rises and operational standards keep climbing.
