A creative director sits down to review a senior designer. The designer's best layout won a client pitch, yet three other projects ran late and one was redone twice. The director remembers the pitch clearly and the rest vaguely. The rating she writes reflects the pitch. The designer's colleague, who delivered quietly all year, gets a lower one.
Creative work is hard to review because quality feels like taste. Fairness comes from agreeing in advance what good looks like, and from keeping evidence through the year. This post sets out a way to do both.
Why creative reviews go wrong
- Memory favours the most recent or most dramatic project.
- Taste is mistaken for quality, so the reviewer rates work that resembles their own style higher.
- Client praise or complaints are taken as the whole story, though clients see only the final piece.
- Hours and speed are measured because they are easy, while craft is ignored because it is not.
Define the dimensions of good work
Pick four or five dimensions that apply to the role and write a plain sentence for each. For a writer these might be clarity, accuracy, fit with the brief, voice and meeting deadlines. For a designer: concept, craft, consistency with the brand system, response to feedback and delivery. For an editor: judgement on structure, catching errors, turnaround and how well they guide writers.
Keep the list short. A long list invites scoring everything at a middling level. Share it with the team at the start of the cycle, so no one is surprised by it at review time.
Build the review in steps
- 1
Agree goals at the start of the cycle
Set two or three goals per person that mix output, craft and growth, such as improving a skill or leading a type of project.
- 2
Keep a running evidence file
Each person keeps a folder with key pieces, feedback received and notes on what they learned. The manager adds observations through the year.
- 3
Collect input from the people who worked with them
Ask account managers, peers and juniors short, specific questions about reliability and collaboration. Ask for examples.
- 4
Review work in a calibration session
Leaders look at a few pieces from different people together against the written dimensions, to check they apply the same standard.
- 5
Hold the conversation
Share the evidence, discuss strengths and gaps, and agree next steps. Let the person respond before the rating is final.
Handling feedback and revisions fairly
A piece that went through many rounds is not always a weak piece. The brief may have changed, the client may have shifted taste, or a stakeholder may have joined late. Record why revisions happened. Without that, the person who handled a messy client looks worse than the person given an easy one.
Likewise, a win from a pitch often reflects a team: a strategist, a copywriter, a designer and a lead. Credit individuals for what they actually did.
Role and the written dimensions of good work.
Goals set at the start of the cycle and progress against each.
Three to five pieces chosen by the person and one or two chosen by the manager.
Context for each: brief, changes, client, deadline.
Input from peers, account managers and juniors, with examples.
Growth shown: new skill, new type of project, mentoring given.
Concerns raised during the year and how they were handled.
Agreed next goals and support needed.Peer and cross-functional input
Account managers can say whether a designer met deadlines and took feedback well. Juniors can say whether a senior gave clear direction. Keep these inputs short and specific, and read them as data rather than a vote. Remove personal comments that are not tied to work.
Different roles, different evidence
A writer's evidence is mostly drafts, edits and the notes an editor made. Look at how much the copy changed between first draft and final, and whether the same errors repeat. A designer's evidence includes files, version history and how a rationale was presented. An editor's evidence is harder to see. Ask for examples of articles they improved, and ask the writers they worked with what they learned.
Do not compare volume across roles. A feature writer and a social copywriter produce very different amounts of work. Compare each person with the goals set for their own role.
If a reviewer and the person strongly disagree on a rating, record both views on the sheet. Ask a second leader to look at the evidence. This protects the person and the manager.
Judging growth, not just output
Creative people stay when they feel their craft is improving. Include a section on what the person learned, which new tools or formats they tried and who they mentored. Our post on why junior staff leave digital agencies shows how a lack of growth pushes talent out. For tracking hours alongside quality, see the guide to utilisation and billable hours.
Setting up the process
A light, repeatable cycle helps small studios: goals at the start, a mid-year check and a closing review, all using the same sheet. Our performance management process work helps agencies design goal sheets, rating scales and calibration steps that fit their size.
Design studios often work on a project basis with sharp peaks. The design agencies HR page looks at how that rhythm affects reviews, hiring and retention.
After the review
Write down the agreed next steps and set a date to check them. A review that ends without follow-up teaches people that the exercise does not matter. Keep the evidence file for the next cycle.
