Definitely, ongoing performance management is better for the following reasons:

Employees receive feedback when it matters most, during or right after performance, not months later.

Goals can be adjusted as priorities shift, keeping teams aligned with business strategy.

Regular conversations foster a culture of growth, development, recognition, and accountability.

Managers can coach in real time, helping employees grow continuously rather than waiting for a yearly review.

Annual reviews often suffer from recency bias, whereas ongoing reviews capture performance across the entire year.

continuous performance management is more better than Annual Appraisal ,

base on following reasons below: [1] it ensures growth and learning [2] Aligning employees with dynamic goals [ 3] promote culture of trust and open feedback.

Yes, continuous performance management is generally considered better than the traditional annual performance appraisal system for a number of reasons. The shift is driven by the need for more agile, engaging, and developmental processes in modern workplaces. While a single annual review can provide a formal record, it often fails to provide timely, actionable feedback.

Yes, in modern economic conditions, systematic performance management is more adaptive.

Whether continuous performance management (CPM) is “better” than annual performance appraisal depends largely on the objectives of the performance management system.

• Annual performance appraisals offer structure and formality. They are useful when the main objectives are compliance, compensation decisions, or long-term accountability. Their limitations lie in being infrequent, backward-looking, and less responsive to rapidly changing conditions.
• Continuous performance management (CPM) provides ongoing feedback, goal adjustment, and development conversations. It tends to improve engagement, adaptability, and alignment with strategic objectives. However, CPM can be resource-intensive, requiring significant managerial time and a culture of openness and trust.

Thus, organizations need to weigh the pros and cons:

• Annual appraisals → lower administrative cost, but limited developmental impact.
• CPM → higher costs in time and resources, but stronger developmental outcomes and agility.

In practice, the costs of CPM can be justified or overcome when the objective is to foster innovation, rapid adaptation, and employee growth. If the primary objective is formal evaluation for pay and promotion, the annual system may suffice.

In short: The “better” system depends on what the organization aims to achieve—development, accountability, or both. Many organizations use a hybrid approach, keeping annual reviews for formal decisions while adding continuous feedback for development and agility.

Whether continuous performance management (CPM) is “better” than annual performance appraisal depends largely on the objectives of the performance management system.

• Annual performance appraisals offer structure and formality. They are useful when the main objectives are compliance, compensation decisions, or long-term accountability. Their limitations lie in being infrequent, backward-looking, and less responsive to rapidly changing conditions.
• Continuous performance management (CPM) provides ongoing feedback, goal adjustment, and development conversations. It tends to improve engagement, adaptability, and alignment with strategic objectives. However, CPM can be resource-intensive, requiring significant managerial time and a culture of openness and trust.

Thus, organizations need to weigh the pros and cons:

• Annual appraisals → lower administrative cost, but limited developmental impact.
• CPM → higher costs in time and resources, but stronger developmental outcomes and agility.

In practice, the costs of CPM can be justified or overcome when the objective is to foster innovation, rapid adaptation, and employee growth. If the primary objective is formal evaluation for pay and promotion, the annual system may suffice.

In short: The “better” system depends on what the organization aims to achieve—development, accountability, or both. Many organizations use a hybrid approach, keeping annual reviews for formal decisions while adding continuous feedback for development and agility.

Izhar M. Hussain

Continuous performance management is increasingly seen as superior to the traditional annual appraisal because it fosters real-time feedback, agility, and employee development. Rather than waiting for once-a-year reviews, managers and employees engage in ongoing conversations that allow for timely course corrections, recognition, and alignment with dynamic business goals. This approach not only improves motivation and engagement but also strengthens the manager-employee relationship through frequent, meaningful dialogue.

Annual appraisals, by contrast, often suffer from recency bias, vague evaluations, and a lack of actionable follow-up. They can feel like bureaucratic rituals rather than opportunities for growth. While they may still have a role in long-term planning and compensation decisions, combining them with continuous feedback mechanisms creates a more responsive and human-centered performance culture. Ultimately, the shift toward continuous performance management reflects the realities of a fast-paced, evolving workplace where adaptability and development matter more than static, retrospective ratings.

I agree in general with @Sara Russo. I will add that it is not good make disjunctive what should be conjunctive: Continuous performance management (CPM) is better than just annual performance appraisal (APA) but the last one could be an opportunity to summarize the day-by-day review. In that case, APA would not be neither "vague evaluations", nor merely a formality.

yes, because performance management is on going process and through this employee get to know where improvement id need to align their goals with the organizational ones.