Development that doesn't stop at the review
Performance reviews, one-to-ones and goals, in the same platform that runs your training. Score last year's objectives, agree next year's, and pick the course that closes the gap, all on the same form.
L&D is two letters. Most software only does the first one
Learning platforms record what people have completed. Performance platforms record how people have been rated. They get bought separately, they don't talk to each other, and development is what falls down the gap between them.
A manager writes "needs to get better at handling difficult conversations" in a review. That sentence lives in the performance system. The training that would actually help lives somewhere else, if anyone thinks to go and look. Twelve months later, the same manager writes the same sentence again.
That isn't a manager problem and it isn't a motivation problem. It is what happens when the review and the training live in two different places.
We built performance into Learnient rather than next to it, so the review ends with training assigned and objectives set.
What's included
The annual review, on one form
Last year's objectives appear in the review automatically, one row each, with the name they had when the year started. The manager scores them there.
Next year's objectives get agreed on the same form. Add a row, write the objective, and when the review completes they exist as real goals, through your approval process where you use one.
That is the whole annual review in one place, rather than a review in one system and a goal-setting exercise in another three weeks later.
Build the review you actually run
Self-assessment, manager assessment, and any other stages you need, in the order you need them.
Each stage opens when it is that person's turn. A manager can't read the questions from a later stage before they get there, and once a stage is finished it locks, so nobody quietly edits their answers after the conversation.
Start reviews when you choose, on a set schedule, or from a date that belongs to the person. Six weeks after someone joins for a probation review, or every year on their work anniversary. When you switch a rule on you decide whether it picks up the people who already work for you, or only new starters from here.
One-to-ones with something to build on
Set the frequency once and it keeps running. Both people fill in their own part.
When the next one comes round, what you both said last time is on the screen, along with where their goals have got to and how they stand against the skills their role asks for. So the conversation picks up where it finished, and a manager who inherits somebody doesn't start blind.
360 and peer feedback
Bring in peers, direct reports, and other stakeholders alongside the manager view, with responses kept anonymous where you want them to be.
Feedback comes back grouped rather than as a wall of individual replies, and doesn't surface at all until enough people have responded to keep it that way.
Goals
Goals for individuals, teams, departments and the whole company, with progress you can see through the year instead of guessing at the end of it.
A goal can carry a real measure with a starting point and a target, so progress is a number that moves rather than a status somebody picks. Where a number doesn't fit, it can just be a status.
- Team and department goals feed into the ones above them, so a company target reflects the work happening underneath it
- Certain goal types can need sign-off before they count, whether the goal was set in a review or on its own
- A goal library means good objectives get reused instead of rewritten from scratch for every person
- Every progress update is kept, so you can see how a goal actually moved rather than only where it ended up
Set it up the way you already work
Most performance tools hand you their process and expect you to change yours to fit.
You build the forms yourself. The questions, the ratings, the comment boxes, whatever your review actually asks. Then you set the process. Who does what, in what order, what has to happen before the next person can start, and what happens when it's done.
Most of the time that is simple. Self-assessment, then manager, done. A single step where the manager fills in one form once a year is a perfectly good review, and nothing here makes you build more than that to get started.
When you do need more, it's already there. A stage can branch on its outcome, so a review that lands on "exceeding" goes down a different path from one that lands on "not yet meeting": stretch objectives and a promotion decision on one side, a support plan on the other, without running two separate review processes. The middle ground can carry straight on without a branch of its own.
Sign-off can be routed by where someone sits rather than only to their own manager, so a rule like "two levels up" keeps working as people move. And an approval step can send a review back for revision instead of only approving or rejecting it, so a manager rewrites the part that needs it and it picks up where it left off.
The same setup runs your reviews, your one-to-ones and your goal sign-off. You build the process you actually run. You don't wait for us to add it.
The part only a learning platform can do
This is the reason we built it.
Learnient already knows the skills each job needs and the courses that teach them. When a manager opens a review, they can see where that person sits against the skills their role asks for, without having to remember it.
Then they pick the course, learning path or certification that closes the gap, right there in the form. It gets assigned when the review completes, with a due date if you set one, and it lands in that person's training alongside everything else.
Development stops being a sentence somebody wrote in March. It becomes something with a name, a deadline and a completion date.
No integration project. No two vendors to keep in step. No exporting reviews into a spreadsheet so somebody can work out who needs what.
Less chasing, as usual
The same automation that already handles your training handles your review rounds.
-
Scheduling that is one-off, repeating, or tied to each person's own dates
-
Who's included, worked out for you by role, department or location, decided at the moment the round starts
-
Reminders and escalation so the system chases the manager who hasn't done theirs
-
Whole-round control so you start it, watch it and stop it as one thing rather than person by person
Reviews hold sensitive things. We treat them that way
A manager's honest comment about a named person isn't the same as a course completion, and the permissions work accordingly.
Access is set by role and by relationship, so a rule like "the person's own manager" keeps working as people move around, without anyone maintaining a list. You can go down to individual fields, so a moderation comment is visible to HR and not to the employee, and stays that way after the review is finished rather than opening up once it's signed off.
Every change is recorded, so if a review is ever disputed you can see who changed what and when.
Reporting that treats performance like any other data
Your review answers are not locked inside the review.
Every question on a published form becomes a proper column you can report on, so "show me everyone who rated themselves below three on customer handling" is a report you build yourself rather than a request you send to somebody.
Scored objectives report a row per objective per review, so you can look across the organisation at how a particular goal landed rather than only at one person at a time. Goals, goal progress and approval requests all report too.
Build it, save it, schedule it, export it. The same report builder you already use for training data.
Where we'd point you elsewhere
You'd rather find this out here than three weeks into an evaluation.
If what you're buying is a standalone performance system, buy one. We're a learning platform with performance built into it. That's a deliberate choice, not a stepping stone to becoming something else.
In practice that means you can build a moderation step into any stage and route sign-off up the management line, but we don't do calibration in the way a dedicated suite does: comparing ratings across a population, forced distributions, nine-box grids.
What we have is the part that's genuinely hard to bolt on afterwards. Development that turns into training people complete, and objectives that get set where they were agreed, because it's all the same system. If that's the bit that's broken for you, that's what we built this for.
See it running on your own review process
Bring the review form you use today and we'll build it during the demo.
