"A once-a-year payment schedule is too infrequent to change someone's work ethic. In theory, money signals how good (or not) someone is at their job. But, it's impossible to give someone feedback on an entire year's worth of work with a nominal pay increase. Plus, it's rarely an indication of how well someone did the job over a full year. Managers don't remember how people performed all year long, and they admit to rating sub-par workers the same as stand-out employees. Workers also complain that hearing about their flaws once a year gives them no chance to respond and change behaviors. "

So the solution is biannual reviews?

I would prefer no reviews. Most people have regular 1-1s with managers, I think if the result of those meetings is recorded, or somehow codified (tasks completed, delayed, problem addressed, etc), then no review is needed - it is all there, in those 1-1s reports.  It is generally a good idea to have a running document of your accomplishments - and in majority of the companies I worked I had to send a report to my manager every Friday, combine those with feedback and you got your review as things happen.

Regular 1-1s does seem best. Thanks Masha!