Completion Date
Spring 2026
Document Type
Thesis
Degree Name
Master of Science (MS)
Program or Discipline Name
Project Management
First Advisor
Dr. Tedd Wheeler
Abstract
Performance reviews are widely used in engineering consulting firms to evaluate employee contributions and determine compensation and promotion decisions. However, research has shown that traditional review systems may overemphasize measurable technical results while overlooking collaboration, leadership, and innovation. In project-based engineering environments, where employees work across multiple teams and stakeholders, this structure may not fully reflect the nature of daily work. This qualitative phenomenological study explored how early-career engineers in project-based engineering consulting firms experienced performance review practices. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 15 engineers working in consulting firms. The study examined participants’ perceptions of fairness, completeness, and developmental value in their performance evaluations. Thematic analysis was used to identify shared patterns across participant experiences. Five major themes emerged: project contributions were often not fully captured in formal reviews; evaluations relied heavily on a single supervisor; performance reviews were perceived as more compensation-driven than development-focused; evaluation criteria lacked transparency; and multi-source feedback was viewed as fairer and more useful. The findings suggest a misalignment between the collaborative structure of project-based engineering work and traditional performance review systems. The study provides practical recommendations for developing more holistic and development-oriented evaluation practices in engineering consulting firms.
Recommended Citation
He, X. (2026). Performance Reviews in Project-Based Engineering Firms: Toward a More Holistic and Development-Oriented Approach. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.harrisburgu.edu/dandt/86