To overcome loyalty bias toward long-tenured employees, leaders should reframe performance reviews. Instead of asking if they are "good enough," ask, "Knowing our future needs, would I hire this person for this role today?" This clarifies whether their skills match future requirements, enabling objective talent decisions.

Move beyond annual reviews by implementing a structured competency model for bi-monthly, one-hour check-ins. This practice removes ambiguity from feedback, makes it conversational and actionable, and creates a continuous, transparent growth loop.

Most managers are conditioned to spot errors. A more powerful strategy, inspired by Ken Blanchard, is to actively "catch people doing the right thing" and praise it. This builds an emotional bank account, reinforces desired behaviors, and improves culture far more effectively than constant correction.

Many skilled professionals are overlooked for promotions or new roles not because their work is subpar, but because they fail to articulate a compelling narrative around their accomplishments. How you frame your impact in interviews and promotion documents is as crucial as the impact itself.

A "team brag session"—where each member publicly praises a colleague—is counterintuitively more beneficial for the giver. While the recipient feels respected, the act of recognizing others elevates the praiser's own morale and strengthens team bonds.

To assess an internal candidate's readiness for promotion, give them the responsibilities of the higher-level role first. If they can succeed with minimal coaching, they're ready. This approach treats promotion as an acknowledgment of proven performance rather than a speculative bet on future potential.

To ensure continuous alignment, the speaker measured a "surprise factor." Before a review, he and his report would each write down the expected outcome. A mismatch was a failure of his management and communication during the performance cycle. Even positive surprises indicate a coaching failure.

Instead of asking managers for a checklist to get promoted, focus on delivering significant impact. This approach is more effective and viewed more favorably by leadership. Genuine impact is what gets recognized and rewarded, while simply 'checking boxes' can backfire.

According to the "Feedback Fallacy" research, focusing on weaknesses creates a stress response and yields flat results. In contrast, identifying what someone does well and encouraging more of it leads to a 17% performance improvement. It is more effective to analyze and replicate successes than to fix failures.